Board index ‹ Jesus

[Mobile]

Deu 12:32 "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."

[jimwalton]

Jesus was the burnt offering of atonement (Lev. 1)
Jesus was the perfect high priest of the order of Melchizedek (Gn. 14)
He was the Bread of Life, the fulfillment of the showbread
He was the Light of the World, the fulfillment of the temple lamp stand.
He was the New Law, superseding the Law of Moses.
Jesus was the grain offering of pure service (Lev. 2)
Jesus was the peace offering (Lev. 3)
Jesus was the sin offering who paid the penalty for sin (Lev. 4)
He was the fulfillment of the Feast of the Tabernacles.
He was the fulfillment of the Feast of Dedication.
He was the Passover Lamb.
He was the expected prophet of Dt. 18.15-19.
His death kept Torah because His blood sacrifice filled God's requirements that even the Law could not do.
Blood was officially necessary for atonement (Lev. 17.11). The giving of life is the necessary presupposition of the remission of sins.

[Mobile]

For example:

Was Jesus a female lamb? Lev 4:32

Was Jesus without blemish, not beaten, not bloody and not circumcised? Lev 4:3,22:20-25

Was Jesus killed by a Kohen according to Torah? Lev 4:4.

Was Jesus' fat taken off and burned on the altar of burnt offering? Lev 4:8-10.

The answer to all of these requirements for a sin sacrifice is No.

The Almighty commanded Torah not be changed -

Deu 12:32 "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."

[jimwalton]

> Was Jesus a female lamb? Lev 4:32

No, the sacrifice for the sin offering was a male (Lev. 4.4-21). Verse 22 starts a different idea, and then 27 yet another one, add 32 another one, tracing through bulls, goats, and sheep. Jesus was the sin offering, not every offering. The point is the sacrifice of blood, not the gender or type of the sacrifice, and that the blood of sacrifice was purifying.

> Was Jesus without blemish

Jesus was without blemish in that He was without sin. And yes, he was without blemish before they blemished him, just as a bull is without blemish until they start cutting him. And, by the way, circumcision was not considered a blemish.

> Was Jesus killed by a Kohen according to Torah? Lev 4:4.
> Was Jesus' fat taken off and burned on the altar of burnt offering? Lev 4:8-10

The priests did kill Jesus, yes, but not according to Lev. 4. The priests did not perceive Jesus as the sacrifice, even though He was.

> The Almighty commanded Torah not be changed - Deu 12:32

As Dr. John Walton writes,

"If the Torah is not prescriptive legislation but is instead wisdom for preserving justice and order in society, then what is the significance of not adding to it or subtracting from it? Statements such as this do not refer to an eternally static situation in which legal perfection has been achieved. Such admonitions are found in the legal literature of the ANE as well but also in other sorts of literature. Significantly, however, in the OT they are also found in relation to prophetic oracles (Jer. 26.2) and even Wisdom literature (Prov. 30.5-6). It is therefore evident that such warnings are not specific to legal documents and do not refer to a complete and unchangeable legislation. Instead, the warnings are addressed to scribes as a way to secure the integrity of the text—whatever sort of text it is. It has to do with textual tempering, not with legislative innovation."

[Spinoza]

That is hilarious. The connections you made are completely nonsensical. ”Jesus was the grain offering??” Give me a break.

[jimwalton]

The meal or grain offering was the poor man's burnt offering, and was established so that every person could have a relationship with God. The primary teaching of the Meal Offering is thanking God and offering their lives for service. Such a relationship was not just for the rich who could afford a large sacrificial offering, but for all. Jesus also came not just for the rich and powerful, but for the underdog, the oppressed, and the poor. "Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven." As Irving Jensen writes, "The gospel presents Christ as the meal offering, and as such he is seen in His pure and perfect manhood as He lived and walked and worked down here, the true Pattern for every believer; and the man sees that because of Christ he must present himself for service."

Even the ultra-poor could have a relationship with God and dedicate themselves to him. But notice also, that even the poor, no matter how poor they were, were to give something of what they had to the Lord. Even if you only had two pennies to rub together you were expected to give one of them. See Mark 12.41-44, where she had two pennies to rub together, and she gave both of them.

The grain offering is a picture of Christ. It was a voluntary offering. Jesus gave Himself in unreserved service to God the Father to be the connection to God for all humanity.

The grain offering was also the offering of the first fruits. In the New Testament, see Rom. 11.16; 1 Cor. 15.20-23; 2 Thes. 2.13; James 1.18; Rev. 14.4. Jesus is the firstfruits of the resurrection from the dead, and we are the firstfruits of salvation. We are like him because we are the firstfruits of salvation and the firstfruits of creation.

I'm certainly open to discussing this more.

[Spinoza]

You can do that with anything, though. You can always come up with some contrived explanation of why "Jesus was X." The reality, though, is that the grain offering is a grain offering. It certainly contains symbolism, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the messiah.

> The grain offering is a picture of Christ. It was a voluntary offering. Jesus gave Himself in unreserved service to God the Father to be the connection to God for all humanity.

But don't you think Jesus was God? So God gave Himself to Himself as a voluntary offering? Not much of a sacrifice, is it? Especially since, if Jesus was God, then he certainly wasn't a poor person who couldn't afford more than a "grain offering."

> Jesus is the firstfruits of the resurrection from the dead, and we are the firstfruits of salvation.

Jesus was not the first person to rise from the dead. Not by a longshot. And there is no need for "salvation" in the first place.

[jimwalton]

> You can always come up with some contrived explanation of why "Jesus was X."

Except that it's not contrived. It was common theology in the early Church, and ever since, that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets (Mt. 5.17). Pictures of Christ pervade the OT, and it is the theology of the Church that the OT was designed as such and properly interpreted as such.

> The reality, though, is that the grain offering is a grain offering. It certainly contains symbolism, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the messiah.

The book of Hebrews portrays the sacrificial system, in its entirely, as a picture of Christ. It specifically illustrates the point in the priesthood, the sacrifices, the Temple, and Jewish practices as all pointing to Christ. It absolutely does have everything to do with the Messiah.

> But don't you think Jesus was God?

Yes, of course.

> So God gave Himself to Himself as a voluntary offering?

Yes. Jesus said of Himself in Mark 10.45, "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." Jesus had asserted that He and God the Father were one essence (Jn. 10.30), and here He asserts that His explicit purpose in coming was to give Himself as a voluntary offering. Also see John 10.18: "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

> Not much of a sacrifice, is it?

Yes, it was a sacrifice. He emptied Himself to be made in the likeness of human flesh to sacrifice Himself on the cross (Philippians 2.6-8: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing nby taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!"

> Especially since, if Jesus was God, then he certainly wasn't a poor person who couldn't afford more than a "grain offering."

As a human, he was poor. His parents offered the poor person's offering at his dedication (Lk. 2.24), and later in life He claimed He had no home (Lk. 9.58: "Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”)

> Jesus was not the first person to rise from the dead.

It's interesting that you admit that He rose from the dead. He was not the first to come back to life, but He was the first and only to conquer death in His coming back to life. That is the point of the "first fruits" texts.

> And there is no need for "salvation" in the first place.

Well, this is an opinion of yours with which I obviously disagree, and it's a risk you take in living your life with this perspective. But it's your choice to make and your risk to take.

[Spinoza]

> Except that it's not contrived. It was common theology in the early Church, and ever since, that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets (Mt. 5.17). Pictures of Christ pervade the OT, and it is the theology of the Church that the OT was designed as such and properly interpreted as such.

That does not make it not contrived. Christian theology is predicated on the fact that Jesus completely failed to fulfill any of what the messiah is supposed to fulfill, and then died - so they had to come up with completely new theology to account for this fact. That is what "fulfilled the Law" and all that other stuff is.

> Yes, it was a sacrifice. He emptied Himself to be made in the likeness of human flesh to sacrifice Himself on the cross (Philippians 2.6-8: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing nby taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!"

This is all gibberish, I'm sorry. It does not even remotely resemble the God of Hebrew scripture.

> As a human, he was poor. His parents offered the poor person's offering at his dedication (Lk. 2.24), and later in life He claimed He had no home (Lk. 9.58: "Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”)

Because he chose to be. He could have chosen not to be. If he was God then it did not matter that he was deprived of physical comforts - he did not need to eat or sleep, so who cares if he had no food or home?

> It's interesting that you admit that He rose from the dead.

I do not for one second believe that he actually rose from the dead. I am just pointing out the contradiction. Even if he had risen from the dead, it would have zero significance, since false prophets can also perform miracles, and in the absence of him fulfilling absolutely any of the messianic prophecies or accomplishing anything at all that the messiah is supposed to accomplish, simply rising from the dead increases his credibility not even a little.

> He was not the first to come back to life, but He was the first and only to conquer death in His coming back to life. That is the point of the "first fruits" texts.

This statement has no meaning.

> Well, this is an opinion of yours with which I obviously disagree, and it's a risk you take in living your life with this perspective. But it's your choice to make and your risk to take.

The concept of "salvation" in the Christian sense did not exist until it was invented by Christians. It is purely a scare tactic to get people (mostly aimed at gentiles) to become Christians. Jews know that no such thing is necessary for anybody and never was.

[jimwalton]

I can see that our conversation has reached its end. There will no meeting of the minds, and your contributions have devolved into complete falsehoods based on pure denial. We have nowhere left to go with a rational interchange.

• Christian theology is predicated on the knowledge that Jesus was a complete failure, so they fabricated what they wanted to say.
• The theology of Phil. 2.6-8 is gibberish
• It didn't matter that Christ chose to live in poverty
• Jesus didn't rise from the dead; I'm just pointing out a contradiction. Even if He had risen, it would have zero consequence.
• "This statement has no meaning."
• The concept of salvation was invented by Christians as a scare tactics.

Thanks for the discussion, as far as it went. We have no place to go from here. I truly wish you a good day of health and happiness.