Christians, what are you talking about?!

[Skammer]

By Jewish reckoning, Jesus was crucified on Friday (Day 1), stayed dead through the Sabbath (Day 2) and rose on the third day, Sunday. You don’t have to ret-con a Wednesday crucifixion or anything like that for the days to work out (John’s peculiar timing of the Passover aside).

[Farmer_Jane]

Dio, you are wrong. The bolded words clearly indicate you are saying that Passover = sin forgiving time for a year via lamb.

Dude, you got that confused with another holiday.

Passover has nothing to do with sins. It’s a celebration.

You are wrong.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The OP’s question is a fair one, and one that we do not have a current thread about (though it’s come up frequently in the past). It might not be articulated very politely, but the essental question about Christian salvation theology is not unfair.

Different Christians are going to offer different interpretations, but the truth is that it has its roots in beliefs that gods respond to animal sacrifice, and specifically in the ancient Jewish practice of sacrificing an unblemished lamb at Passover for an annual forgiveness of sins. The lambs were killed at the Temple, and their blood was poured on the altar, and sins were forgiven for the year.

After the crucifixion of Jesus, his followers interpreted that event as the ultimate Paschal sacrifice. The perfect, “unblemished lamb” whose blood “washed away the sins of the world,” not just for the year, but for all time.

This interpretation followed from previous beliefs about sacrifice, and really do break down if one attempts to analyze them too closely. The idea of God requiring a sacrifice at all is very difficult to explain anymore, but that belief had its roots in much more primitive perceptions of gods.

[caligulathegod]

John is pretty much propaganda, so I discount any argument that is sourced in John. But you are right, it does say the meal was Passover. I’ll bring that up.

[Farmer_Jane]

Curious, what does the Greek text actually say and when was it written? Passover was actually two separate feasts that were combined.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@CitizenPained

Dio, you are wrong. The bolded words clearly indicate you are saying that Passover = sin forgiving time for a year via lamb.

Cleansing of sins and renewal was a part of Passover. Not the only part, but part, and that was part of the significance of the sacrifice (a part which Christians may have exaggerated). Jesus as the Paschal Lamb is not something I made up. It’s in the Gospel of John. If you have a problem with it, take it up with him.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@CitizenPained

Curious, what does the Greek text actually say and when was it written? Passover was actually two separate feasts that were combined.

The Greek text for which Gospel? There are four of them written at different times (estimates generally have the dates of composition ranging from 70-100 CE).

I can show you the Greek for whichever Gospel you want, but they all pretty clearly specify the first day of Passover and “the feast of unleavened bread.”

[Farmer_Jane]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Cleansing of sins and renewal was a part of Passover. Not the only part, but part, and that was part of the significance of the sacrifice (a part which Christians may have exaggerated). Jesus as the Paschal Lamb is not something I made up. It’s in the Gospel of John. If you have a problem with it, take it up with him.

:eek:

I’m talking about the Jewish passover, not the Christian Easter. Please cite for me your information that Passover is a holiday in which a lamb is sacrificed for the yearly atonement of sin.

and specifically in the ancient Jewish practice of sacrificing an unblemished lamb at Passover for an annual forgiveness of sins. The lambs were killed at the Temple, and their blood was poured on the altar, and sins were forgiven for the year.

If I am wrong, I will sincerely apologize.

[Mtgman]

Paschal Lamb

The sacrificial animal, which was either a lamb or goat, was necessarily a male, one year old, and without blemish. Each family or society offered one animal together, which did not require the “semikah” (laying on of hands), although it was obligatory to determine who were to take part in the sacrifice that the killing might take place with the proper intentions. Only those who were circumcised and clean before the Law might participate, and they were forbidden to have leavened food in their possession during the act of killing the paschal lamb. The animal was slain on the eve of the Passover, on the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan, after the Tamid sacrifice had been killed, i.e., at three o’clock, or, in case the eve of the Passover fell on Friday, at two.[3]

The killing took place in the court of the Temple at Jerusalem, and might be performed by a layman, although the blood had to be caught by a priest, and rows of priests with gold or silver cups in their hands stood in line from the Temple court to the altar, where the blood was sprinkled. These cups were rounded on the bottom, so that they could not be set down; for in that case the blood might coagulate. The priest who caught the blood as it dropped from the victim then handed the cup to the priest next to him, receiving from him an empty one, and the full cup was passed along the line until it reached the last priest, who sprinkled its contents on the altar.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Farmer_Jane]

@Mtgman

Paschal Lamb Enjoy,
Steven

Um…no.

We all know about sacrifice in the Temple. We all know about the lamb and the six trillion laws concerning the sacrifice as outlined in the Torah.

I’m talking about Dio’s statement (that he’s yet to provide cites for):

and specifically in the ancient Jewish practice of sacrificing an unblemished lamb at Passover for an annual forgiveness of sins. The lambs were killed at the Temple, and their blood was poured on the altar, and sins were forgiven for the year.

[Daylate]

Best condensed version of the story of the Garden of Eden.

Two innocent children eat an apple.
God holds 4,000 year grudge.

[FinnAgain]

Dio’s conflating two separate issues. Yes, passover involved the sacrifice of lambs. But it wasn’t for redemption of sin. The Jewish annual holiday that involved sins is Yom Kippur, which was celebrated with the sacrifice of a goat, not a lamb, upon whose flesh all of the people’s sins were ritually placed. (Some have suggested that’s the root of the concept of a ‘scapegoat’)

You may now return to bickering.

[Mtgman]

From the same wikipedia page.

The paschal sacrifice belongs to the “shelamim,” thus forming one of the sacrifices in which the meal is the principal part and indicates the community between God and man.

For those not familiar with the Shelamim, here’s some background.

Orelli holds (“Opfer,” in Herzog-Hauck, “Real-Encyc.” 1904, xiv. 392) that the shelamim are a covenant of friendship (Gen. xxxiv. 21), and express community between God and His own and of God’s own among themselves. Hamburger (“R. B. T.” 1884, p. 802, s.v. “Opfer”) considers that the peace-offering signifies kindness, as of a friend or confidant (Ps. vii. 5; comp. Prov. vii. 14). Guthe (“Kurzes Bibelwörterbuch,” p. 486, Tübingen, 1903) says that according to P, which classifies the sacrifices, the shelamim are a form of compensation to Yhwh for the favors of the harvest. As early as Ezekiel, however, the peace-offering had acquired the character of atonement (Ezek. xlv. et seq.), although P does not mention it (Benzinger, “Arch.” 1894, pp. 445-446).

Karl C. W. F. Bähr (in “Symbolik des Mosaischen Cultus,” ii. 368-386, Heidelberg, 1839) derives “shelem” from = [original Hebrew omitted due to browser issues] “to pay to God the praises due to Him” (comp. Ps. lvi. 13, lxi. 9, lxv. 2, lxvi. 13; Job xxii. 27; Prov. vii. 14; Nah. ii. 1). This sacrifice, therefore, would imply payment of what either has been vowed or is due to God (Ps. l. 14, 23; cxvi. 14, 17; Jonah ii. 10; Hos. xiv. 3). Bähr also considered “tamim” a form analogous to “shelamim” (pp. 135, 370; comp. Job xxi. 23). The relation between man and God is made complete; the disparity is removed: this is “shalom” = “peace.” Every grace of God makes man a debtor. The offering of the first-fruits is counted among shelamim, as is also the offering of the vow, which was made not at its assumption, but at its fulfilment (Num. vi.; see also Dillmann, “Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus,” p. 491).

Different Views on the Sacrifice.

Kurtz (“Das Mosaische Opfer,” pp. 129-154, Mitau, 1842; idem, “Der Alttestamentliche Opfercultus,” ib. 1862) maintains that [original Hebrew source for “shelem”] means “to be perfect,” “to make perfect.” The sacrifice, therefore, has for its purpose a “restitutio integra,” a rehabilitation of the person. Besides, divine benefits cause one to feel that the grace received is undeserved. God shows by His gracious deeds that He maintains His part of the covenant. The thank-offering is to restore the right relation under the consciousness that man on his part has been derelict. The free-will offering and the vow-offering are always mentioned together: their rituals, too, are identical in essential points as differing from the thank-offering. “Peace-offering” is a term covering the different kinds of sacrifices, but it is a thank-offering.

Calling the paschal lamb an atonement sacrifice is a less common interpretation, but it wouldn’t get you run out of the room or stoned as a heretic. There is some scholarly support for such an interpretation. Mostly though it was a reminder of the bondage in Egypt and the Exodus and a community-building event.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Farmer_Jane]

Umm…I wasn’t denying the sacrifice of a lamb. Did you read what I said? I said this was NOT a annual festival in which we sacrificed a lamb and ate it for the yearly atonement of our sins.

Dio was wrong.

Thank you.

[Skammer]

@Daylate

Best condensed version of the story of the Garden of Eden.

Two innocent children eat an apple.
God holds 4,000 year grudge.

Thank you for your enlightened contribution.

[Mtgman]

Ezekiel 45, verses 21-23. New International Version

21 “‘In the first month on the fourteenth day you are to observe the Passover, a festival lasting seven days, during which you shall eat bread made without yeast. 22 On that day the prince is to provide a bull as a sin offering for himself and for all the people of the land. 23 Every day during the seven days of the festival he is to provide seven bulls and seven rams without defect as a burnt offering to the LORD, and a male goat for a sin offering.

Passover sacrifices having an atonement aspect have scriptural support. I don’t think Diogenes the Cynic was fairly summarizing the full context of the Passover ritual sacrifice, but it’s a minor quibble when the premise of the thread is “the entire practice of religion is bullshit!” If we’re focusing on the various purposes of a specific ancient sacrifice for a specific religion, then we’re way off the point of the thread.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Farmer_Jane]

@Mtgman

Ezekiel 45, verses 21-23. New International VersionPassover sacrifices having an atonement aspect have scriptural support. I don’t think Diogenes the Cynic was fairly summarizing the full context of the Passover ritual sacrifice, but it’s a minor quibble when the premise of the thread is “the entire practice of religion is bullshit!” If we’re focusing on the various purposes of a specific ancient sacrifice for a specific religion, then we’re way off the point of the thread.

Enjoy,
Steven

It does make a difference when you change the meaning of a holiday in the single stroke of an Enter button. He claimed that Passover was a ritual in which Jews made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the yearly cleansing of their sins.

That is so, so wrong.

I just happened to be scrolling through new posts and saw that Dio made a pretty serious error – a statement that is similar to what is seen in Christian commentary when they talk about Easter. His statement was factually incorrect. Maybe that’s where he got it from. I don’t know. I do know that Christians try to inappropriately liken Passover to their Easter when making the case for Christ.

That’s it. Just fighting the ignorance. Also, if you are going to cite a Bible about Jewish religion, why not cite the Jewish one? My point of contention wasn’t over animal sacrifice. Every Jew knows what’s on a Seder plate. I was concerned that he was mixing up Easter, Passover and Yom Kippur.

I think it’s a pretty simple request to* please* not change 3,000 years of history just so that you can sound educated in a religion thread.

It’s cool if Dio knows a lot about NT and Christ and Greek and stuff, but that does not make him an expert on All Things Religious.

Since Dio is so concerned with the Gospels and history, I was really surprised he got that one wrong. It was a major error. Maybe not so noticeable to you, but Jews aren’t fond of people perpetuating myths to fit their missionary work.

[Mtgman]

Do you see any significant differences in the text of Ezekiel in Jewish editions than in the NIV I cited? I’m not aware of any. The most serious charge one could level against using Ezekiel as support for a contention that the sacrifice of a lamb on Passover was for atonement is that the particular section of Ezekiel it comes from is talking about a post-Messiah world. After Israel is restored and the tribes united, when the ruling house is re-established, and the temple restored, then the “prince” becomes responsible for providing the sacrifices, including a bull(upgrade from a lamb!) for the people’s sins on day 1, and a goat for sins every day thereafter.

Of course since the Messiah has not come, the temple has not been rebuilt, and there is no prince to provide the animals to sacrifice, then clearly this ritual implementation of Passover never, well, came to pass. Thus my agreement that summarizing the role of the lamb in Passover as an atonement ritual is inaccurate.

I reiterate, however, the point of the thread is that the whole kit and caboodle of religion is bullshit, so arguing over the details of the kit and/or caboodle is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I know the difference between the Scapegoat and the Paschal Lamb, and I didn’t make a mistake, especially as it pertains to the actual thread topic, which was the Christian interpretation of the crucifixion as an atoning sacrifice. John makes the Paschal-surrogate symbolism clear and explicit - Jeus is the “lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” This was based on the Paschal sacrifice having at least some degree of atonement in it.

Jeus as a “scapegoat” symbol is actually rejected in Christian theology because the goat’s sacrifice is unknowing and unwilling. Jesus, ostensibly chose what he was doing (why they see the goat as unwilling, but not the lamb, I have no idea).
Now it may be that John emphasized the atoning aspects of the Paschal sacrifice more than what was conventional in ancient Judaism, but that doesn’t change the essential fact, as I stated above, that this aspect is what Christians chose to emphasize about the sacrifice and how they interpreted the crucifixon.

Having said that, I probably did get that emphasis mixed up with the Scapegoat sacrifice a little bit.

[Farmer_Jane]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I know the difference between the Scapegoat and the Paschal Lamb, and **I didn’t make a mistake,
**

Dio, seriously. You claimed:

[INDENT]

and specifically in the ancient Jewish practice of sacrificing an unblemished lamb at Passover for an **annual forgiveness of sins. **The lambs were killed at the Temple, and their blood was poured on the altar, **and sins were forgiven for the year. **

[/INDENT]

You made a mistake. Man up to it.

especially as it pertains to the actual thread topic, which was the Christian interpretation of the crucifixion as an atoning sacrifice. John makes the Paschal-surrogate symbolism clear and explicit - Jeus is the “lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.”** This was based on the Paschal sacrifice having at least some degree of atonement in it**.

Says the Gospel you don’t believe in?

Look, Christians twisted a very central idea in Judaism and made it into something Jews don’t even recognize – Jesus as the Pascal Lamb. Anything other than a lamb at Passover is weird. The lamb was not about sin. You can’t atone for someone else.

Saying that “atonement” is part of Passover is kind of silly, because atonement is part of everyday Jewish life.

Jeus as a “scapegoat” symbol is actually rejected in Christian theology because the goat’s sacrifice is unknowing and unwilling. Jesus, ostensibly chose what he was doing (why they see the goat as unwilling, but not the lamb, I have no idea).

Um, thanks for sharing? The goat is pushed off the cliff, so I guess the lamb looks a little more innocent.

Now it may be that John emphasized the atoning aspects of the Paschal sacrifice more than what was conventional in ancient Judaism, but that doesn’t change the essential fact, as I stated above, that this aspect is what Christians chose to emphasize about the sacrifice and how they interpreted the crucifixon.

More than conventional? Uh, more like warped. Your other stated fact was a big giant red light ERROR. What Christians did was take a crucial theme in Jewish identity and distort it. So if you repeat that myth – as a historian – it’s pretty bad.

Pascal lamb refers to the Passover lamb. The Pesach lamb. Literally - the lamb sacrificed at Passover. The lamb that became their supper that night. Pesach/Passover - to pass over. The Angel of Death passed over the Jews and slayed the firstborn sons of Egyptians. That’s the crux of the holiday and it’s very central to Jewish identity.

Christians saying that Jesus was the sacrificial Paschal Lamb doesn’t make a lot of sense if you consider what Passover is about. I’m not negating that John was a heretic or anything. Just sayin’.

Having said that, I probably did get that emphasis mixed up with the Scapegoat sacrifice a little bit.

Okay…this is probably the most concession I’ll ever see from Dio. Just please, dude, if someone suggests you may be wrong about something, give it thought instead of calling me a liar like you did in the Pit. I make mistakes all of the time but I can own up to them without rewriting history. The Day of Atonement plays a huge part in Christian methodology. They just kind of swiped out some aspects of Judean history for others so that it meshed well with their Orsis-like god.

I think that you have a lot of knowledge that can be useful in these religion debates (and clearly we’re going to see a lot of each other) but you discredit yourself when this shit happens. Come on. You’re older than I am. Let your cool head prevail.

I actually think the points you brought up and I brought up could have been a great starting off point. There are many things in Judaism that Christianity took and changed so that it would appeal to the masses. Judaism did the same thing, but this isn’t a thread about Judaism.

Ironically, Passover is the combination of two festivals, one of which originated out of Egypt. :o It evolved and took on a Hellenistic feel.

//end reponse

–

//start post

Passover is a national holiday designed to remind Jews of their heritage and their debt to God. Every time a Jew says the Shma they invoke the image of the Exodus.

It’s no secret that Judaism is rooted in idolatry, or that HaShem was often depicted as a calf in the early years. It’s no secret that the sacrifice of animals was done in partial atonement for some sins. Early Israelites believed that other gods existed. They just thought theirs was superior.

But Passover is not the yearly holiday in which Jews come together to address their transgressions to each other and towards God. This is not the holiday in which we wish we are to be inscribed in the Book of Life. That’s Yom Kippur, which beings after the New Year (whereas Passover is the head of the harvest year). This “Jesus was the Pascal lamb who died for your sins and you need not to worry anymore” thing sounds nice, but it doesn’t make any sense when you consider what the Pascal lamb is. So my question is:

wtfmate

How can you believe in Jesus if the entire precept of Christianity is based on ‘what Jews thought in Jesus’ day’ and their projections of Judaism (like the Prophets, for example) is largely a lie?

[Farmer_Jane]

@Mtgman

I reiterate, however, the point of the thread is that the whole kit and caboodle of religion is bullshit, so arguing over the details of the kit and/or caboodle is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Enjoy,
Steven

ACTUALLY, if you take what I said, you’d see that my points just strengthened the argument against Christianity since early Christians tried to rewrite history while riding their propaganda train.