Why Is Jesus As A Sacrifice OK?

[Rival]

Wrong!

10 Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors: yet he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
​

Did you miss the part where it says "He shall see his seed [children], he shall prolong his days"? No-one is being physically sacrificed here. All that's being said here is that HaShem desired to make the people sick so that they would turn to Him again and repent. Here is the verse from a Jewish translation:

And the L-rd wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and G-d's purpose shall prosper in his hand.

The soul needs to repent for all it's done. This is about Israel's transgressions and Israel interceding on behalf of transgressing nations. Israel needs to repent.

Also, if, as you believe, this referred to messiah, the messiah is clearly alive a while and has children and will prosper. Not your man.

 

[Grandliseur]

Did you miss the part where it says "He shall see his seed [children], he shall prolong his days"? No-one is being physically sacrificed here.

That is where your interpretation and ours differs 180 degrees. Christ was sacrificed, and his spiritual children are the ones who shall inherit the earth.

In other words, your beliefs and ours are incompatible. Nonetheless, the scriptures clearly says the following:

10 Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors: yet he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.​

If you can read then is the question here.
End of argument, end of story.

You have the right to your unbelief, and we have the right to our beliefs. No discussions will solve this disagreement.

​

 

[Rival]

That is where your interpretation and ours differs 180 degrees. Christ was sacrificed, and his spiritual children are the ones who shall inherit the earth.

In other words, your beliefs and ours are incompatible. Nonetheless, the scriptures clearly says the following:

10 Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors: yet he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.​

If you can read then is the question here.
End of argument, end of story.

You have the right to your unbelief, and we have the right to our beliefs. No discussions will solve this disagreement.

​

Have fun with your Christian mistranslations.

 

[Grandliseur]

Have fun with your Christian mistranslations.

We will for it is the Gospel of Salvation through Christ, and no other name provides salvation.

 

[Rival]

We will for it is the Gospel of Salvation through Christ, and no other name provides salvation.

Salvation from what?

 

[wizanda]

Firstly i don't agree with sacrifice; my point of contention is the faulty reading of the Tanakh.

Isaiah 53 is about the Nation of Israel, not an individual.

So instead of Yeshua Elohim (Isaiah 52:10) allowing himself to be put to death; you want God to have premeditated murdering Israel...

Plus we can not show most of the things happening to Israel; yet we can show each for Yeshua.

Have you also noticed how it uses past tense?

Have you noticed how many future prophecies are also written in past tense, in other words prophets used past tense to imply it will happen?

Israel is referred to as G-d's servant

It is terrible exegesis to assume all servants listed in Isaiah are Israel, when the text is specific each time.

Did you miss the part where it says "He shall see his seed [children], he shall prolong his days"?

Isaiah 53:9 he is put to death with the wicked, so the entity being spoken about is dead?
Isaiah 53:10 it pleased YHVH to crush him, and then he shall see his seed, so again the person is dead before it says they shall see their seed?

This is easily explained within the Parable of the Seed Sower (Matthew 13:24-30), as Yeshua even said when the son of man is taken up, he shall see his seed from Heaven.

In my opinion.

 

[Grandliseur]

Salvation from what?

Please read Daniel chapter 7, Psalms 72. Eternal life in Paradise earth is promised the righteous. The wicked are promised eternal sleep in Sheol.

 

[Rival]

So instead of Yeshua Elohim (Isaiah 52:10) allowing himself to be put to death; you want God to have premeditated murdering Israel...

Isaiah 52:10-

The Lord has revealed His holy arm before the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our G-d.

Not sure what this has to do with anything?

Plus we can not show most of the things happening to Israel; yet we can show each for Yeshua.

No we can't. Jesus wasn't hated; he never prospered or had a family.

Isaiah 53:10-

And the L-rd wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and G-d's purpose shall prosper in his hand.

It is terrible exegesis to assume all servants listed in Isaiah are Israel, when the text is specific each time.

Isaiah 52:4-6 sets the scene:

For so said the L-rd G-d, "My people first went down to Egypt to sojourn there, but Assyria oppressed them for nothing."And now, what have I here," says the L-rd, "that My people has been taken for nothing. His rulers boast," says the L-rd, "and constantly all day My name is blasphemed. Therefore, My people shall know My name; therefore, on that day, for I am He Who speaks, here I am."

It is clearly talking about Israel's redemption.

Isaiah 53:9 he is put to death with the wicked, so the entity being spoken about is dead?
Isaiah 53:10 it pleased YHVH to crush him, and then he shall see his seed, so again the person is dead before it says they shall see their seed?

The heathens wanted to kill the Jews, as per usual, for not committing idolatry. The Jews were prepared to go to the grave for their faith. Also in exile, they need to repent and if they do so, their souls will be saved and they will see their children.

 

[Rival]

Please read Daniel chapter 7

I read it and I can't find an eternal Sheol sleep. Can you give me a verse?

 

[Grandliseur]

I read it and I can't find an eternal Sheol sleep. Can you give me a verse?

No, you wouldn't in Daniel. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.

Here is a study of mine:
Link: Truth Seeker - Judgment & Sheol

 

[wizanda]

Not sure what this has to do with anything?

Because in Hebrew, Yeshuat Eloheinu is the Salvation of our God, with the roots Yeshua Elohim, it says we will physically see this (Psalms 98:3).

Thus the Servant in Isaiah 52:13-14 is specifically stated as being sent from Heaven, who shall appear as a son of man.

Jesus wasn't hated

Zechariah 11:8 states he was hated by the leaders; which we can clearly see from the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Levites, who had him put to death as they didn't like him.

he never prospered or had a family.

He didn't have to; the seed (זרע) can be metaphoric, and is used in multiple Parables as his teachings, and followers.

he shall see children

That is a terrible translation; zera is used by Joseph as a metaphor, and it doesn't always imply children, it means seed.

It is clearly talking about Israel's redemption.

Different timeline, Isaiah 52:1-9 is talking about the Messianic age, and since Yeshua's mission is interrelated, they're told at the same time.

The heathens wanted to kill the Jews, as per usual, for not committing idolatry.

So based on Isaiah 53's connotations, the Heathens killed and persecuted Jews as they wanted to have their sins forgiven in someway?

The Jews were prepared to go to the grave for their faith.

Isaiah 53:9-10 says the entity talked about in the text, is literally put to death with the wicked.

Also in exile, they need to repent and if they do so, their souls will be saved and they will see their children.

Isaiah 53:11-12 says the reason they receive is because they were put to death, because they've made many turn to righteousness, because they made intercession for the transgressors...

None of that applies to Israel, and trying to make it fit defiles the Law, and just blatantly ignores context in many places.

In my opinion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Neither Jephthah not his daughter are scholars. I think the story on its own illustrates what happens to an ignoramus.

I’d say that the story clearly praises the daughter, and Jephthah follows his daughter’s advice.

There is a question here if there was any promise that he needed to keep. It's definitely not ok to break your word to G-d. But let's say I take an oath to give your house to the Temple. That doesn't work, because I don't have control of your house.

... yet. I suppose that acquiring my house would now become a priority. Presumably, if you offered enough - or gave me a compelling reason to just give it to you - you could get control and keep your promise.

That scenario isn’t that different from shorting a stock: you promise to sell someone a quantity of stock - which you don’t yet own - for a certain price at some date in the future. By the agreed date, you need to acquire the stock. Admittedly, this is easier when you’re trying to buy shares than one particular house, but the principle is generally the same.

The same if I take an oath to offer a pig as a sacrifice. Only cows, sheep, goats and pigeons can be offered as animal sacrifices. All the oaths in the world, aren't going to get my pig up on that altar. So there's a dispute in the Talmud about whether or not the oath is invalid altogether or whether the person owes the value of the sworn item.

You can still try your utmost to fulfill your oath. If other people try to stop you - as I assume they would if you tried to bring a pig into the temple - well, you can only do what’s physically possible.

... but if you knew - or ought to have known - that pigs are forbidden as sacrifices but chose to promise it anyway, then the fact that it’s forbidden isn’t a reason to break your oath.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Salvation from what?

From the wrath of the Christian God.

 

[allfoak]

Why is it alright in the Christian religion for Jesus to be a human sacrifice when all throughout Tanach G-d dismays of such practices and does not command them?

It is because the Christian religion has been perverted.
The term religious porn comes to mind.
They have taken something sacred and turned into something gross.
Because the message has been perverted so bad it has become a virtual prison for most who get involved.

 

[Jainarayan]

According to the Bible, Adam was not a “god incarnate”; he was simply a man, but a perfect human one. So, the only life needed was a perfect human one.

Can we really say Adam was a perfect human, having disobeyed God?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Wrong!

10 Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors: yet he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
​

So Jesus no longer has a soul.

 

[Nakosis]

So Jesus no longer has a soul.

According to this the soul has no separate existence from the body.

In my own thinking, the soul would be seen as the "life force of the body". So in death one gives up body and soul.

No Existence Separate from the Body
The biblical conception, as noted, views the soul as part of the psychophysical unity of man, who, by his very nature, is composed of a body and a soul. As such, the Bible is dominated by a monistic view that ascribes no metaphysical significance to human existence, for it sees in man only his tangible body and views the soul simply as that element that imparts to the body its vitality.

The soul is, indeed, considered the site of the emotions, but not of a spiritual life separate from that of the body, or of a mental or emotional life in conflict with that of the body, it is, rather, the seat of all of man’s feelings and desires, physical as well as spiritual.

Jewish Spirituality and the Soul | My Jewish Learning

However, really for me it is interesting how one can create a narrative by finding a meaning to a word that fits the narrative.

The seat of man's feelings - the subconscious mind. This more fits my personal narrative. So now when I see the word soul I think subconscious mind.

A reading of the Bible can take on a whole new meaning by either rightly or wrongly redefining a word to suit your narrative.

One can argue all they want the "correct" meaning but without access to the actual author, who's the say they are wrong?

 

[LuisDantas]

Never understood sacrifices. I don't think God has need of anything, least of all of sacrificing himself in some form.

It is certainly an odd belief.

Trying to make sense of it I can perhaps imagine that God needs to experience sacrifice in order to better understand the needs and plights of humans.

But that, obviously, implies that the presumably boundary-less God had serious empathy problems until some 2000-odd years ago.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

You do know they sacrificed people to Odin? What exactly could you(worshiper of the asgard) have against human sacrifice?

I'm well aware of that, but you mistake my point. If there are multiple stories all throughout the Old Testament - the Hebrew bible - where the god of Abraham is commanding or accepting human sacrifices, why would Jesus' sacrifice not be just as much accepted?

Ásgarðr is also the world of the Æsir; we worship them, not their world.

You know God doesn't make mistakes.

I know quite the opposite. Your myth of the Garden of Eden shows very grave errors being made.

Pharaoh's son and the firstborn of Egypt was a punishment on Egypt.

As told in the bible, that whole situation is just pettiness on Moses' god's behalf. Did you know that Pharaoh was fully willing to let the Hebrews go after the first couple of plagues? He was going to send them on their way, until your god made his mind up the opposite for him. It's a sticky wicket either way, but the Pharaoh knew what the cost was in saying "no" that final time.

What's more, since Jesus allegedly rose from the dead, nothing was lost. In fact, as the story goes, he got more powerful through death, so really nothing was lost. Sacrifices are when something is lost or given up for good and final. What did Jesus loose or give up in such a manner?

 

[Tumah]

I’d say that the story clearly praises the daughter, and Jephthah follows his daughter’s advice.

Can you quote some praise from that chapter?

... yet. I suppose that acquiring my house would now become a priority. Presumably, if you offered enough - or gave me a compelling reason to just give it to you - you could get control and keep your promise.

That scenario isn’t that different from shorting a stock: you promise to sell someone a quantity of stock - which you don’t yet own - for a certain price at some date in the future. By the agreed date, you need to acquire the stock. Admittedly, this is easier when you’re trying to buy shares than one particular house, but the principle is generally the same.

I had a feeling you'd say something like this. What would happen if you shorted a stock but lost your assets before acquiring it?
We have a rule that a person can't consecrate something to the Temple that doesn't belong to him (consecrating something to the Temple means you've taken an oath to donate it). When you consecrate something it gains a certain status (for instance, it becomes prohibited to use by anyone but the Temple), but you can't change the status of someone else's property for anyone but yourself. You'd end up transgressing the prohibition against false oaths automatically. It's like taking an oath to turn the sky brown or something impossible.

You can still try your utmost to fulfill your oath. If other people try to stop you - as I assume they would if you tried to bring a pig into the temple - well, you can only do what’s physically possible.

Well, there's another problem here that animals are brought on the altar by the priests. But even if the person making the oath was a priest himself, if he doesn't get the pig up on the altar, he's breaking his oath. But he also won't be physically capable of bringing the pig on the altar, because no one will allow that. It would also be an oath contradicting an oath, because we're already sworn to uphold the commandments, but that's a side argument. The point is at the end of the day, the oath will be broken.

... but if you knew - or ought to have known - that pigs are forbidden as sacrifices but chose to promise it anyway, then the fact that it’s forbidden isn’t a reason to break your oath.

Sure it is. The requirement to fulfill your oath is a commandment. The requirement to not bring pigs on the altar is a commandment. Why do you think the former should trump the latter?