I don't think the words Jesus spoke were symbolic. Just like raising the temple in 3 days was not symbolic. He did resurrect on the 3rd day. His crucifixion was not symbolic either it happened. You have to accept the literal meaning of the bible or the message is lost in symbolism.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why did the blood have to touch people?
- Thread starter e.r.m.
- Start date
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Well no one drank Jesus blood or ate his flesh literally.... so his words must mean something else.
And when he said he would raise the 'temple', they thought he was talking about the temple building in Jerusalem, but he was speaking about his 'body'... so he was speaking symbolically about such things.
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
Thank you Pegg,
Reply works like a charm.
Thank you also for your post. I don't get the impression that it had anything to do with symbolism. The blood on the houses during passover wasn't symbolic.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
np
Well if you think about the blood on the houses, the angle passed over a house if there was blood on the doorposts and only those who had obeyed and put faith in God would have put that blood on the door post. So really, the blood on the doorpost may have signified that the person inside was putting faith in Jehovah.... just as christians are told to put faith in the redeeming value of Christs blood.
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
That is a reasonable logical deduction, except that if God was simply interested in obedience, He could have asked for anything, a picture of the tree of life for example.
But sacrifice and blood have been very consistent theme for God. I think the blood that night meant more than just obedience.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
You said you didnt think the blood symbolized anything... i think it had several symbolisms attached to it. mostly it symbolized the sacrifice that would be given by Jesus as the 'unblemished lamb'
God has always been big on sacrificial offerings almost to the point of developing a fetishism for it. God introduced human sacrifices by offering his only begotten son Jesus as the sacrificial lamb. He chose crucifixion for Jesus because there would be spilling of blood.
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
That's morbid and wrong.
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
Only in retrospect. At the time, I suspect seeing the blood on the house satisfied the death requirement of the firstborn.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Thats not what the bible says:
Isaiah 1:1“Of what benefit to me are your many sacrifices?” says Jehovah.
“I have had enough of your burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed animals,
And I have no delight in the blood+ of young bulls and lambs and goats.
“I have had enough of your burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed animals,
And I have no delight in the blood+ of young bulls and lambs and goats.
Proverbs 21:3 To do what is right and just Is more pleasing to Jehovah than a sacrifice
It was man who introduced sacrifices, not God. Read it in the book of Genesis 4:4
But it was God who introduced human sacrifice. The Jews offered animal sacrifices only.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Here's that verse: [4] and Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering,
[5] but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell.
Note that God was pleased with Abel's offering, so Able must have had that belief for some reason.
Simplelogic
Well-Known Member
Did God say He had no desire for burnt offerings?
Another reason why Christians and many Jews do not believe there is a place for burnt offerings any longer is because they believe God Himself said through the prophets He has no desire for them. Here are a couple popular passages that at first appear to support this.
"To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me?" Says the Lord. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed cattle. I do not delight in the blood of bulls or of lambs or goats." Isaiah 1:11
We need to understand the state of things in Israel at the time Isaiah wrote this. The mind set of the people was that they figured they could do whatever they pleased against the Law of God as long as they offered God the appropriate sacrifice afterwards. In essence, they were trying to appease God... a form of patronage that was repulsive to Him because it totally lacked love for Him, His ways, and true repentance. God had had enough of their patronizing sacrifices. We should understand God to be saying, "I do not delight in the blood of your bulls or of your lambs or goats." He did not imply that all burnt offerings were repulsive to Him. Just theirs.
The second popular passage is;
"For I desire mercy and not sacrifice." Hosea 6:6
This passage left out of its context appears quite compelling at face value. Yahshua even quoted it in Matthew 9:13. There he exhorted the Pharisees to go and find out what it meant. This would imply studying the passage in its full context. The very next phrase in Hosea reads: "and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." This is typical Hebrew poetry where the essence of one phrase is repeated in another with different words. God did not say He had absolutely no interest in sacrifice. The obvious point that Yahshua wanted to make was that mercy is preferred, and far better than sacrifice, the same way that true repentance is preferred and better than sacrifice in God's eyes.
Simplelogic
Well-Known Member
Vicarious atonement?
One of modern Judaism's arguments against Yahshua offering himself for man's sin is the belief that one person cannot pay for the sin of another. This is called "vicarious atonement". The word vicarious means, "acting, or done, on behalf of someone else or in his place". This argument ignores the fact that this is exactly what animal sacrifices were. God accepted the life-blood of the innocent animal on behalf of the guilty person. I refer again to Leviticus 17:11.
Many rabbis also argue that since God did not accept Moses' offer to take Israel's punishment for them as recorded in Exodus 32:30-33, this proves that God does not accept a man's sacrifice on another's behalf. All this particular scene really proves is that God would not accept Moses' sacrifice on behalf of others. There could be a number of reasons why God would not accept Moses' offer other than the assumption that man-for-man could not be done. It could be that Moses himself was not without spot and sin-free as all acceptable sacrifices had to be. Nor was Moses' one life, as good as it was, worth the lives of an entire nation. What the rabbis seem to overlook is the fact that even Moses believed it was possible a man could offer himself on behalf of others or he would not have made the proposition! Where do you suppose he got the idea?
We must also look at the prophecy of the sin-bearing servant in Isaiah 53. The following are a few excerpts.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
For he was cut-off from the land of the living; for the transgressions of my people he was stricken.
When You make his soul an offering for sin,
For he shall bear their iniquities.
And he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Judaism today maintains that this person mentioned in Isaiah 53 is the nation of Israel. I quite disagree, and believe their interpretation is a desperate measure to find some interpretation other than the obvious. But even if this were true, it is still impossible to get away from the fact that here is proof that God accepts human-for-human sacrifices.
One of modern Judaism's arguments against Yahshua offering himself for man's sin is the belief that one person cannot pay for the sin of another. This is called "vicarious atonement". The word vicarious means, "acting, or done, on behalf of someone else or in his place". This argument ignores the fact that this is exactly what animal sacrifices were. God accepted the life-blood of the innocent animal on behalf of the guilty person. I refer again to Leviticus 17:11.
Many rabbis also argue that since God did not accept Moses' offer to take Israel's punishment for them as recorded in Exodus 32:30-33, this proves that God does not accept a man's sacrifice on another's behalf. All this particular scene really proves is that God would not accept Moses' sacrifice on behalf of others. There could be a number of reasons why God would not accept Moses' offer other than the assumption that man-for-man could not be done. It could be that Moses himself was not without spot and sin-free as all acceptable sacrifices had to be. Nor was Moses' one life, as good as it was, worth the lives of an entire nation. What the rabbis seem to overlook is the fact that even Moses believed it was possible a man could offer himself on behalf of others or he would not have made the proposition! Where do you suppose he got the idea?
We must also look at the prophecy of the sin-bearing servant in Isaiah 53. The following are a few excerpts.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
For he was cut-off from the land of the living; for the transgressions of my people he was stricken.
When You make his soul an offering for sin,
For he shall bear their iniquities.
And he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Judaism today maintains that this person mentioned in Isaiah 53 is the nation of Israel. I quite disagree, and believe their interpretation is a desperate measure to find some interpretation other than the obvious. But even if this were true, it is still impossible to get away from the fact that here is proof that God accepts human-for-human sacrifices.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I really don't have a particular interest in getting much involved in this discussion, but let me ask what supposedly was the "final sacrifice" in regards to Jesus: his humanness or his divinity? If it's his humanness, how could that be since human sacrifices are strictly forbidden in Judaism, plus how would sacrificing a human actually forgive sin? If it's his divinity, how could God be sacrificed to God?
Secondly, is it possible, iyo, that maybe there was a parallel being drawn whereas there need not be a literal interpretation of Jesus "sacrifice"?
Secondly, is it possible, iyo, that maybe there was a parallel being drawn whereas there need not be a literal interpretation of Jesus "sacrifice"?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
That's actually not true:
Matthew 5:31-32: “everyone who divorces his wife… forces her to commit adultery.”
5:38: “’an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’… offer no resistance.”
8:22: “Jesus told him, ‘Follow me, and let the dead bury the dead.”
21:43: “The kingdom of God taken away from you and given to another.”
Luke 16:16: “The Law and the prophets were in force until John.”
John 8:44: “The father you spring from is the devil… The Jews answered… .”
Romans 6:14: “Sin will no longer have power over you; you are under grace, not under the Law.”
7:6: “Now we are released from the Law.”
10:4: “Christ is the end of the Law.”
11:20: They were cut off because of their unbelief and you are there because of faith.”
14:20: “All foods are clean.”
I Corinthians 7:19: “Circumcision counts for nothing.”
Galatians 3:10: “All who depend on the observance of the Law… are under a curse.”
5:2: “If you have yourself circumcised, Christ will be of no use to you.”
5:4 “Any of you who seek your justification in the Law have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from God’s favor.”
6:15: “It means nothing whether you are circumcised or not.”
Ephesians 2:15: “In his own flesh he abolished the Law with its commands and precepts.”
Hebrews 7:18: “The former Commandment (I.e. priests according to the order of Melchizedek) has been annulled because of its weakness and uselessness.”
Clearly the above does not pertain to the oral law.
There isn't any law anywhere that allows someone to die for the sins of others. Sin is not transferable. Sin cannot be absolved by the sacrifice of another in your place. The whole concept of human sacrifice , Jesus the sacrificial lamb is pure nonsense. It was an alternate explanation offered by Christians to explain why Jesus died on the cross. He died for our sins. But quite simply put, Jesus was tried, convicted and put to death for blasphemy.
METIS, YOU REMIND ME OF A GUY THAT READS A BOOK ON BLACKJACK, THEN GOES TO VEGAS THINKING HE CAN BEAT THE HOUSE. YOU OBVIOUSLY READ WORDS, BUT YOU ARE NOT GETTING IT. I AM GOING TO GIVE YOU QUICK ANSWERS...
Matthew 5:31-32: “everyone who divorces his wife… forces her to commit adultery.”
[IS THIS NOT THE LAW? AND WHAT IS ADULTERY? DAVID HAD 14 WIVES, BUT HE WAS NOT AN ADULTERER. WHY DID YOU POST THIS VERSE?
5:38: “’an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’… offer no resistance.”
[NOT IMP]
8:22: “Jesus told him, ‘Follow me, and let the dead bury the dead.”
[WHAT??? WHY DOES THIS APPLY]
21:43: “The kingdom of God taken away from you and given to another.”
[WHAT DOES TIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE LAW?]
Luke 16:16: “The Law and the prophets were in force until John.”
[FIRST OF ALL, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY WENT AWAY. IT MEANS THE OPPOSITE AS OTHER BIBLE’S TRASNLATE IT. YOU ARE LOOKING AT A TRASNLATION ISSUE…
Luke 16:16
(GW) "Moses' Teachings and the Prophets were in force until the time of John. Since that time, people have been telling the Good News about the kingdom of God, and everyone is trying to force their way into it.
OR
(CEV) Until the time of John the Baptist, people had to obey the Law of Moses and the Books of the Prophets. But since God's kingdom has been preached, everyone is trying hard to get in.
John 8:44: “The father you spring from is the devil… The Jews answered… .”
[WHY DID YOU POST THIS? IS JESUS OF THE DEVIL? DID JESUS SIN?]
Romans 6:14: “Sin will no longer have power over you; you are under grace, not under the Law.”
[I MENTIONED THIS HERE OR IN ANOTHER POST. THE LAW HE IS TALKING ABOUT THERE IS JEWISH ORAL LAW AND ALSO IN ROMANS 7.]
7:6: “Now we are released from the Law.”
[AGAIN, JESUS DEATH RELEASED YOU FROM JEWISH ORAL LAW. NOT MOSAIC LAW]
10:4: “Christ is the end of the Law.”
[HE IS THE END OF JEWISH ORAL LAW BLOTTING IT OUT AS HANDWRITINGS OF MEN]
11:20: They were cut off because of their unbelief and you are there because of faith.”
[FAITH IS NOT A NT CONCEPT IS IT? AND NEITHER IS GRACE. THE TORAH TALKS ALLA BOUT FAITH AND GRACE]
14:20: “All foods are clean.”
[THAT IS NOT TALKING ABOUT FOOD. IT IS METAPHORICAL. WHEN JESUS SAID EAT MY FLESH HE DID NOT MEAN EAT HIS FLESH. WHEN JOHN ATE THE SCROLL AND IT WAS BITTER HE DID NOT EAT PAPER. WHEN ADAM AND EVE ATA OFF THE WRONG TREE THEY DID NOT EAT A TREE. AND PAUL IS NOT TALKING ABOUT LITERAL FOOD AS WE KNOW THAT WHEN JESUS DIED A PIG DID NOT SUDDENLY BECOME A CLEAN ANIMAL DID IT? DID CATFISH BECOME CLEAN WHEN JESUS DIED?]
YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE RUNS DEEP.
Matthew 5:31-32: “everyone who divorces his wife… forces her to commit adultery.”
[IS THIS NOT THE LAW? AND WHAT IS ADULTERY? DAVID HAD 14 WIVES, BUT HE WAS NOT AN ADULTERER. WHY DID YOU POST THIS VERSE?
5:38: “’an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’… offer no resistance.”
[NOT IMP]
8:22: “Jesus told him, ‘Follow me, and let the dead bury the dead.”
[WHAT??? WHY DOES THIS APPLY]
21:43: “The kingdom of God taken away from you and given to another.”
[WHAT DOES TIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE LAW?]
Luke 16:16: “The Law and the prophets were in force until John.”
[FIRST OF ALL, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY WENT AWAY. IT MEANS THE OPPOSITE AS OTHER BIBLE’S TRASNLATE IT. YOU ARE LOOKING AT A TRASNLATION ISSUE…
Luke 16:16
(GW) "Moses' Teachings and the Prophets were in force until the time of John. Since that time, people have been telling the Good News about the kingdom of God, and everyone is trying to force their way into it.
OR
(CEV) Until the time of John the Baptist, people had to obey the Law of Moses and the Books of the Prophets. But since God's kingdom has been preached, everyone is trying hard to get in.
John 8:44: “The father you spring from is the devil… The Jews answered… .”
[WHY DID YOU POST THIS? IS JESUS OF THE DEVIL? DID JESUS SIN?]
Romans 6:14: “Sin will no longer have power over you; you are under grace, not under the Law.”
[I MENTIONED THIS HERE OR IN ANOTHER POST. THE LAW HE IS TALKING ABOUT THERE IS JEWISH ORAL LAW AND ALSO IN ROMANS 7.]
7:6: “Now we are released from the Law.”
[AGAIN, JESUS DEATH RELEASED YOU FROM JEWISH ORAL LAW. NOT MOSAIC LAW]
10:4: “Christ is the end of the Law.”
[HE IS THE END OF JEWISH ORAL LAW BLOTTING IT OUT AS HANDWRITINGS OF MEN]
11:20: They were cut off because of their unbelief and you are there because of faith.”
[FAITH IS NOT A NT CONCEPT IS IT? AND NEITHER IS GRACE. THE TORAH TALKS ALLA BOUT FAITH AND GRACE]
14:20: “All foods are clean.”
[THAT IS NOT TALKING ABOUT FOOD. IT IS METAPHORICAL. WHEN JESUS SAID EAT MY FLESH HE DID NOT MEAN EAT HIS FLESH. WHEN JOHN ATE THE SCROLL AND IT WAS BITTER HE DID NOT EAT PAPER. WHEN ADAM AND EVE ATA OFF THE WRONG TREE THEY DID NOT EAT A TREE. AND PAUL IS NOT TALKING ABOUT LITERAL FOOD AS WE KNOW THAT WHEN JESUS DIED A PIG DID NOT SUDDENLY BECOME A CLEAN ANIMAL DID IT? DID CATFISH BECOME CLEAN WHEN JESUS DIED?]
YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE RUNS DEEP.