I was using [i]lost[/i] the same way the other commenter was when describing the lamb sacrifices. I’m agreeing with you.

The New Testament without fail describes Jesus's death as a "giving up" rather than a loss. "Giving up" implies willful action to be perceived as a gift; "loss" implies it be wrenched away from him without consent.

Texts that speak of Jesus's sacrifice as a giving up: Matt. 20.28; Mark 10.45; Luke 22,19; John 3.16; 6.51; 19.30; Romans 8.32; Gal. 1.4; 2.20; Eph. 5.2, 25; 1 Tim. 2.6; Titus 2.14

Texts that speak of Jesus's sacrifice as a loss: I couldn't find any.

The burden of proof is on you to show that Jesus lost His life.

Also Jesus lost his life…

Thank you for the explanation. What I saying is that the whole meaning, worldview and cultural context of "law" was something different back then. And it would be my contention that it was not the Torah that was so legalistic, but all the of Talmudic, midrashim, and rabbinic additions and contortions that were added through the centuries that made it so. My point is that my description of the Torah (and what Torah even means) was accurate, even from a Jewish perspective. What has changed is how it was interpreted.

For instance, the Torah says, in general, that work should not be done on the Sabbath. By the time of Jesus, the rabbis had established 39 categories of activities that must not be performed on the Sabbath. In turn, these main 39 categories were subdivided into 39 classes, making a total of 1521 Sabbath rules. It wasn't the Torah that was legalistic, it was Judaism.

My point about being Jewish is that your description of these teachings isn't accurate from a Jewish perspective.

The entire codification of the Talmud was because rabbinic Judaism is so legalistic.

No, but that doesn't really matter. In reality, it's helpful and I'm glad. Presuming that you have been trained in biblical Hebrew, then you know what I'm saying is true. But even if you're Jewish, that doesn't mean you've studied the culture of the ancient Near East. As I've said several times, "law" to them doesn't mean what "law" does to us. "Gay" today doesn't mean what it meant 75 years ago. "Infrastructure" apparently doesn't mean what it meant even 5 years ago. Anyone who reads Shakespeare can tell that the meaning of words has changed. In the King James Bible, "conversation" means way of life; in our world it means a dialogue between people.

If you're Jewish, you know that Torah means "instruction; insights." And you know that the "Ten Commandments" is a misnomer, because it's really the "Ten Words." And I've shown you that in the ancient world "law" meant something different than it does now. I'm glad to hear you're Jewish. It should be at least a little easier for you to comprehend what I'm saying. And you know that I'm telling you the truth about mishaps, mitsyot, chuqqot, and torah. It's a completely different worldview of law than ours.

On the other hand, I know that many Jews today are secular and even atheist, as you have identified yourself to be. In that case, I'm not sure I'd expect that you know the nuances of biblical Hebrew or have researched the cultures of the ancient Near East. Your religious heritage doesn't necessarily guarantee a certain level of linguistic competence or understanding in these matters.

Did I mention I'm Jewish?

Your comment shows that you have probably missed the whole point. "Law" to them didn't mean prescriptive rules and regulation, or legislation to be followed. That's what law means to US. "Law" to them meant "instruction." The ancient Near East is a non-legislative society; legal structure is not based on written documents or prescriptive legislation. The Hammurabi collection, for instance, is a listed example of his verdicts, held up as models from a wise judge. In other words, they are not lists of rules with accompanying consequences. The ancient codes never attempt to be exhaustive or comprehensive, because that was not their purpose. Ancient “lawyers” never rested on previous cases or precedent. Ancient litigants didn’t want the judge to use a book or rules, constraints, and precedents to make his decisions. Instead, they expected a judge to use his intuitions, values, morality, and wisdom. They knew nothing of "law" the way we define it, understand it, and use it. As I quoted, the Torah is never relied on as a legal, normative basis for judicial rulings. Rather, it was intended to give the king/judge wisdom to do his job. The term never refers to codified legislation, which is what I presume you mean by "law."

The Hebrews didn't have a term for "law" meaning what ours means. All their different synonyms represent different aspects of what we would call "law," but for them, there was no such thing as prescriptive legislation.

Torah = instruction, insights

Mishpat = Rights

Mitsyot = Obligations

Chuqqot = Decrees, directives

> Torah" means "instruction

And LAW.

"Torah" means "instruction." The Torah was not a battery of prescriptive laws, but instead how Israel was to conduct itself. The "laws" of ancient Near East were never based in case law, precedent, or technical arguments as ours are. Instead, the ancient judge was to know the holy book of the covenant so he would be wise enough to make a wise decision in the situation. It didn't matter, as opposed to our world, what the person in the next town did or what the judge five years ago ruled. Rather, a good judge was the one who had wisdom to make a good ruling.

The Torah is a book of the covenant, not a list of rules. Even what we call the "Ten Commandments" is a misnomer. In Exodus they are called the "Ten Words." As John Walton writes, [quote]"The Decalogue, like the rest of the Torah, is focused on instructing Israel as to the nature of the societal order that would reflect the reputation God desires for Himself. The ten “words” provide information about the shape of the covenant community, both in terms of how the community interacts with YHWH and how the Israelites interact with one another. The words are not intended to establish morality; they characterize the ways that Israel, YHWH’s covenant people, can retain God’s favor and thereby receive life in the land. They describe the sort of society that YHWH wishes is to establish for the reflection of his identity in the context of the cultural river of the ANE as He administers favor, blessing, and presence as opposed to curses, abandonment, and exile."[/quote]

By Walton, again: [quote]"We have to see ancient law in its ancient context, not as we look at law. It was never meant to be prescriptive legislation. It was only after the Reformation that people grew to think of law a codified legislation that is coercive in nature. Consequently, today we think of law as reflected in a legal code. Prior to that, society was regulated by customs and norms, regulated by the wisdom of the judge. It was more flexible. Judges were those who were considered wise in the traditions and values of the culture rather than those who were specially educated. The law was not codified legislation, but rather what wise people deemed to be right, good, and fair. ... The Torah is in this same cultural river. It is there to teach wisdom, not legislation. It is not meant to be comprehensive. For example, it contains little to nothing about marriage, divorce, inheritance, or adoption (four BIG deals in Israelite society). One can notice that the Torah is never relied on as a legal, normative basis for judicial rulings. Rather, it was intended to give the king/judge wisdom to do his job."[/quote]