This is an fun coincidence. I was just listening tonight to a podcast by Philip Harland, Associate Professor in the Humanities Division at York University in Toronto, on his excellent series on the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean.
The podcast, Podcast 2.11: Hebrews’ Portrait of Jesus – Highpriest Melchizedek, part 2, deals specifically with this issue of Jesus’ sacrifice.
Harland says that the author of Hebrews, a Hellenized Judean writing to other Judeans after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, is arguing that Jesus had become a high priest of the order of Melchizedek, (while related to this, it’s a separate topic) and that his sacrifice had superseded the annual Day of Atonement sacrifice which the High Priest would make in the Holy of Holies.
This author had the very Judean concept of god being holy and that a sacrifice was required in order allow god to be close to his people, and I presume this would also be true for allowing people to come close to god.
How does this sound better than the required sacrifices of the Inca’s or Mayans? It never fails to amaze me that when the ‘Christian God required a Human Sacrifice to appease/satisfy the ‘blood debt’ of the sinful humans’ that that seems ‘fine’, but they look at the others and go “evil misguided savages”.
I will grant that there is a scale difference (1 vs 1000s) but any ‘Loving God’ that requires any kind of ‘sacrifice’ (even if its just livelyhood/suffering and not literally life) isn’t really a very ‘loving’ God.
This sounds quite a bit like Peter Graves’ “King Jesus,” which has Jesus initiated into a hidden order of priesthood in preparation for his ascent to the throne.
Graves (crackpot loon thought he was) did a hell of a lot of research for that book. So the idea would seem to have been floating around for a while. But what is its ultimate basis? Is it just one of those traditions that grew up over time (like the proper names of the three Magi – or the idea that there were three of them?) An awful lot of Christian lore simply accreted, like the growing of a pearl.
Note that I’m participating in this as an atheist, so I don’t have a dog in the fight for what is “right,” wrong, “living” or not. My interest in history and the study of theology from an historical point of view.
The idea of Jesus dying for a purpose was something which had to be created after the fact. He was seen as a messahnic figure which was supposed to bring about the literal kingdom of god, not one who was supposed to die. Jesus and the early followers were apocalyptic, they believed that the end was near, and the early teachings were
The Judean god did not require a human sacrifice, but rather his nature required the sacrifice of animals in order to remove the sins or errors of the people. If I understand it correctly the concept of “holy” is “separate” in that god cannot be near sin. This was the purpose of the Sacrifice of Atonement, in which the High Priest selected two goats, one of which was sacrificed to god and the other, the scapegoat would be released into the desert to take the sins of the people as far away from god as possible.
Some of the early Jesus followers decided that Jesus’ death then fulfilled this requirement of the atonement, and that further sacrifice was not longer a requirement. This also was influenced by the destruction of the temple, which had considerable impact on Judeans.
This wouldn’t be a tradition in the same sense as the three Magi. The dating of Hebrews is believed to be late first century, prior to the development of traditional Christian lore.
As Harland explains it, Hebrews was written in order to discourage Jesus followers from associating too closely with the other Judeans in their synagogues, and develops this line of reasoning that Jesus had a priesthood which surpassed the Levitical priesthood.
Melchizedek is an obscure figure in the Hebrew Bible, only being mentioned very briefly. However, Abraham pays a tithe to him, and Mechizedek blesses Abraham and the author of Hebrew argues that this should the superiority of that priesthood over the one held by the descendents of Levi.
I don’t know if that idea originated with the author of Hebrew or if it was based on something prior, but considering the time frame and the evolution in doctrines, it would seem to be new at that time.
My understanding of this topic. (please note i researched it from the Watchtower publications and library, yes i am one of them)
Just my two cents. I admit it’s not an easy topic.
PS There’s no such thing as hell. The atheists are right on this one. Hell or punishment in afterlife is a common concept in Egyptian, Babylonian and many ancient religions. The Roman Catholic church simply gave it a paint job. And what a money maker/crowd controller it was! (my next topic)
The inconsistency still stands, however: The wages of sin for a normal human are death and eternal separation from god, whereas god accepts as the redemption price only three days of death and separation from god for Jesus. God’s religion, god’s rules, I suppose; but it is inconsistent.
so - your understanding is to cut/paste from WT publications? How about using your own words instead. - And if you don’t understand your own sect’s teaching on the subject well enough to do that, maybe you should study more and figure out why that is.
eta - since you are quoting WT materials - you should use the quote function with proper attribution.
Ah, Simster. You can always count on Simster to be Simster.
I read and did my best to use my own words. Of course it is not 100% my own words! To achieve that i would have to give a very short explanation or spend 4 hours instead of two hours to share with you. I did use my own words as much as i could and indeed copied the foundation verses and red line of the explanation.
Hint: that’s why i said so on top of my post. So you know where i do my research and reading. (as most serious posters, even scholars do research and work from “the shoulders of giants”)
Please don’t underestimate the time and effort i put into finding and selecting the points arguments. There were loads to choose from in order to make something the majority of readers can understand. I hope it is appreciated.
So Simster? What are you saying? Are we still on topic or you wanna discuss something else? If you want i’ll give you the links to my sources. I’m sure you’re really interested in the topic.
PS NO i did not quote, that would be forbidden by this forum. My first concern is to share, and since this topic is complex i felt it was best to include most of the explanation about Hebrew and Greek translation. Don’t assume i don’t understand it myself or can’t do a 100% own words post. (but English is not my language and i only had 2 hours to spare instead of 4)
No, don’t thank me, you’re welcome.
Don’t make this personal - I would have said the same thing to any other cut/paste/hackjob - my familiarity with your sect’s teachings allows me to spot this much easier than most.
which actually makes your sect’s position even harder to follow - but boy, it looks ‘impressive’ - as they say - if you can’t prove your point with facts - baffle them with bullshit.
Scholars and ‘serious’ posters understand the need for proper attribution of sources as well as protecting copyrights - it allows other readers and scholars to go beyond an individual interpretation -
YOu actually made your position HARDER to understand - you could have simply followed the simpler approach that the moderator did and provided (reasonably) valuable input to the thread
For some reason I do think you’re fond of me Simster.
I don’t think i should do what the moderator did, because i did not simply copy or quote my arguments. But maybe the moderator has helped share what it’s actually about wich is the OPs topic. So i don’t mind.
It’s all good, nothing personal here at all. (not to me)
Dear Jonathan: you have my post and can see that i did not copy paste wholesale. Maybe i did use too much of what i found but this topic contains a lot of Hebrew and Greek translation and historical background. For those parts there simply are no own words to use.
But next time, i’ll leave out all concepts and explanations wich i did not originally come up with and just frame my understanding around the verses and translations of verbs i found. It will be up to those really interested to spend some more time and look up the verses. No offense meant big guy.
In truth no one knows anything about God, only believe what God wanted, said or did. Ii is believing what some other human said God said or did , so in reality we believe not in God but other human’s or our own mind.
If The Abrahamic God is all knowing, powerful and loving then he knew he created sinners so why he wants evil to exist is a big question. and why punish humans who he created with flaws?
Jesus as a sacrifice never made a lick of sense to me. From the vantage point of his killers, he was no more sacrificed for a higher purpose than a murder victim is by a common thug. Unless I missed something in Bible study, his opponents did not kill him in the name of human sin and depravity. They did not beseech the heavens for humanity’s redemption by nailing him to the cross and whipping him. They did not apologize for their wickenedness or anything.
So by what mechanism could God see Jesus’s death as a sacrifice?
Maybe you missed the posts on the first page.
Just follow from the OP or pick up your bible and read: Lev 16:6, 16-20, Lev 17:11
and compare that with Hebrews 9 verse 13.
“For if the blood of goats and of bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who have been defiled sanctifies to the extent of cleanness of the flesh,
14 how much more will the blood of the Christ, who through an everlasting spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works that we may render sacred service to [the] living God?”
This whole thing started with Adam throwing away his perfect and immortal state and of mankind because he didn’t have any children yet when he did so. The bible even compares Jesus to Adam and calls him the 2nd or Last Adam: 1 Corinthians 15: verse 22 and verse 45
**Hebrews 9:24-28 **
24 For Christ entered, not into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us.
25 Neither is it in order that he should offer himself often, as indeed the high priest enters into the holy place from year to year with blood not his own.
26 Otherwise, he would have to suffer often from the founding of the world. But now he has manifested himself once for all time at the conclusion of the systems of things to put sin away through the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is reserved for men to die once for all time, but after this a judgment, 28 so also the Christ was offered once for all time to bear the sins of many; and the second time that he appears it will be apart from sin and to those earnestly looking for him for [their] salvation.
One thing stands out to me in the giving Jesus Mother over to John is; If he was going to return in 3 days, why would she need protecting? It would seem that Jesus was not always with her. So three days I would think she could care for herself.
So, God (or Jesus or both) let humans kill Jesus, and that’s supposed to make us good with God? Why isn’t it just another reson for some heavy duty smiting?
According to Matthew and Mark. Jesus said he would return in his father’s glory while some of them standing there were still alive. So if that were the case. Jesus didn’t know, was just hopeful thinking, or was misquoted. It surely would have been recorded. Some say the resurrection, some the transfiguration, but neither was a return. No angels came with him either time.