Also because he has difficulty understanding how he’s a liar this clip more or less explains what he does whenever we ask questions on Christian theology or he quotes a “source” like the poor Rabbi:
This is the problem of all pedant christians such as James White and WLC. They have the language to play with, yet they don’t provide an actual answer.
You still don’t know the definition of a lie. You are kind of braindead.
Since I linked to the video, which has the title (that you think defeats my argument, etc.) and lecture and gave the time signature of where to find it, and since I argued with his issue about the Passover, etc.; therefore, I did not lie; I am just using his admission of one aspect of the Day Atonement in Leviticus 16-17, as evidence that Jesus Al Masih is indeed the fulfillment of the OT sacrifices. – Yom Kippur, the day of atonement, and, I would add, the Passover and Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son, etc. and the substitutionary atonement / ransom of the ram in Genesis 22, the temple sacrifices, etc.
I already noted all the areas that the Rabbi disagrees with the Christian interpretation, etc. So, it is not lying.
It may be a “sensational” title, as you wrote (but so is your titles that always has to put the word “lying” or “hypocrite” or “liar” to sensationalize it), and it is our opinion that demonstrates we are right, by the Rabbi’s confession of an analogy. But as you read what I wrote and check it out, there is no “lying” there.
Rabbi Skobac said:
“I want to find an analog for someone that is going to die for general sacrifice for everyoneâs sins. Yom Kippur! We have a day of atonementâŠright, we have the scapegoat that was sent out and on the back of this animal were carried all the sins of the Jewish people, all the sins! A general sacrifice for everything! That would have been a good parallel for Jesus. ”
Therefore did admitted that it is a parallel / analog / analogy.
Therefore I did not lie.
you don’t know the intellectual definition of a lie, therefore you are dumb. You are just using that as a “sensational” title to shut down arguments. Like “Islamophobia” and “Homophobia” and “racism” !! tactics of the liberal socialists, Marxists, secular left.
You have a sensationalized title to shut down thinking and debate, which is typical of many Muslims.
But I appreciate that you linked to my old article and also listened and interacted with the details.
LOL, and we see Kennywise once again being too proud to admit his deception and doubling down on his pathetic polemic!
No, Kennywise, the only one who is braindead is you. Lying scumbags like you revel in false propaganda and distortions. This is the nature of Christian missionaries.
Rabbi Skobac made no such admission that there was a legitimate “parallel”. He was speaking through the point of the view of the idiot who wrote the Gospel of John. This idiot mistakenly used the Passover sacrifice as the “parallel” to Jesus, when the more appropriate sacrifice to use for that purpose was the Yom Kippur sacrifice, because this sacrifice actually had to do with the atonement of sins. The concept of atonement of sins was the “parallel” that the author of the gospel was trying to find. The Passover sacrifice had nothing to do with that. Rabbi Skobac was not admitting that Yom Kippur would be a legitimate parallel vis a vis the Jewish Bible, and he provided numerous reasons why throughout the video. You’re too stupid and proud to admit that you deliberately distorted what Skobac said. You’re just like Paul the false apostle. He also distorted Jewish teachings to spread his pagan religion.
You have been exposed as a liar and a hypocrite. You complain about shutting down “thinking and debate”, yet you are the same clown who does not allow comments on his pathetic blog and also does not allow trackbacks so that your readers can know the other side of the story. You are a scumbag, and you deserve but mockery.
As a side note, the fact that Yom Kippur should have been the correct day for the crucifixion of Jesus (if he was truly to serve as a sacrifice for the atonement of sins) and to fulfill the conditions laid out in the Tanakh, the whole crucifixion narrative in the gospels completely refutes Christianity. The Christian god chose the wrong day to have his son crucified! LOL!!!
no. it is not deceptive when all the argumentation and links to the video, etc. are all there.
Rather, yours is lying about me, because you say I am lying and a hypocrite.
For all I know, you are doing Psychological projection and you want a Caliphate to take over the west and you are doing Taqiyye on us all. You have been exposed as an evil person, and a liar.
“no. it is not deceptive when all the argumentation and links to the video, etc. are all there.
Rather, yours is lying about me, because you say I am lying and a hypocrite.
For all I know, you are doing Psychological projection and you want a Caliphate to take over the west and you are doing Taqiyye on us all. You have been exposed as an evil person, and a liar.”
Dumb loser Kennywise, you are a liar and a hypocrite you piece of garbage.
You blatantly distorted what the rabbi said. We can all see that. Just because you are a piece of garbage who can’t admit his own stupidity, it means nothing.
Your moronic rants only embarrass and expose you further. Now you are lying about Muslims using “taqiyya”! LOL!! Kennywise the filthy sewer clown is showing us his true face!
I don’t put sensational titles it’s pretty basic stuff. You, however, are lying because the average person is not going to watch the video and you know this. Let’s look at what you said:
“Rabbi Admits that the Day of Atonement is parallel to Jesus Christ!”
First off let’s keep it real the average Christian has NO IDEA what the “Day of Atonement” is and they’ll assume it’s the Passover as the authors of the NT said and those Jews are hiding the truth about Jesus’s(as) alleged crucifixion and resurrection.
Next, the man was refuting your beliefs and demonstrating another issue with the alleged “inter-textuality” between the Hebrew Bible and NT. To make your opponent seem to be saying something they are clearly not stating is intellectually dishonest. This is not the first time I’ve seen you do this off the top of my head you did this with Ehrman and the Quran (when he was telling a bad joke and I posted a video when he clearly said there’s nothing that’s been changed) and Carrier when you claimed he said Josephus I believe was the “Strongest argument” the crucifixion had (when he really meant this is the strongest argument you have and once I refute this the rest of the evidence is nothing)
Now from your article, you made a strawman regarding the Passover and didn’t refute his argument.
You then quote propaganda about Isaiah 53 with just nonsensical statement s like:
“Isaiah 52:14 â âHis appearance was marred more than any manâ â refers to the beatings and sufferings of the brutal crucifixion. He was so disfigured that the disciples did not recognize Him when He rose from the dead, because the last memories of His dis-figurement was so seared into their brains.”
What??? No matter how much I see someone get beatdown I know what they look like later. One can’t help but smile at the irony of you saying he made quote: “false arguments”.
But anyway yeah this is one of the many examples of missionary dishonesty which is why everyone has to check EVERY source claimed.
“You, however, are lying because the average person is not going to watch the video and you know this.”
You also don’t know the intellectual definition of a lie.
No I don’t “know that”. I expected them and you (finally Faizywisey evil heart listened to the whole thing) to check it out and listen and see the whole thing. Now you are lying about me.
The sensational titles is about Faizywise the lying evil heart.
Hey Kennywise, you keep ignoring my question. Why are you disobeying your mangod and not turning the other cheek? Your lame comebacks are laughable, but they expose you as a disobedient crosstian. You are a bad crosstian for not obeying your mangod.
So there you have it you are the literal definition of a liar.
As I said, man you can play these games with your (mostly retarded some gullible) readers but you can’t get that off on me. As noted if this was the case you would allow pingbacks and comments but it’s a controlled information feed that the average Christian goes in and swallows it up and thus you spread fearmongering and propaganda. Again, like how you gave a “response” article to me and didn’t even address a thing I wrote but declared victory.
I don’t read you nutty articles. Finally one short enough to read and understand. Genesis 22 was already established centuries before Islam, and the NT proper understanding of it – that Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his only beloved son Isaac was a foreshadowing of John 3:16 and the replacement / substitute of the ram for the sinful human was a foreshadowing of the ransom sacrifice – both in Leviticus, Isaiah 52-53 and the whole NT.
I don’t read your nutty articles was meant for mr.heathcliff. you have too much cursing, dirty language, long ranting, bad grammar, bad spelling – you are a waste of time. I can only comment on your stuff if is short and understandable. Most of your stuff is not even comprehensible.
“I donât read your nutty articles was meant for mr.heathcliff. you have too much cursing, dirty language, long ranting, bad grammar, bad spelling â”
you silly bastard of krist, i dont even need the holy spirit to speak multiple languages, yet a fat missionary shit like you pretends to speak arabic and farsi like he knows his stuff
“you are a waste of time.”
you are an abuse of electronic space with your sexual intercourse of your european bastard god who hangs on a cross.
“I can only comment on your stuff if is short and understandable. ”
u have the holy spriti shafting u bastard pig of krist
Hi Ken how do you deal with the main argument of the rabbi in question? That the NT authors DIDN’T know about said “parallel” and instead haphazardly used the Passover for the atonement of sins instead. Don’t you find that odd? I mean if Yom Kippur is the true parallel why is absent from the NT? As QB said it seems God choose to have his son crucified on the wrong day.
i wonder if he will try to bring up a solution which has already been refuted by others.
For example, greg g from disqus
I had the same thing with the debate over whether Jesus was crucified before the Passover or after. He was on about there being two meals. I showed that the Diaspora had two meals because they couldn’t be certain which day was the new moon as determined in Jerusalem. Then he said it was an earlier version of it. I showed that one ended about a thousand years earlier. He said Jesus was trying to re-institute the old one. I pointed out that John specifically said it was before the time of Passover and each of the Synoptics said it was the time of the Passover before the crucifixion. He then decided to stop responding to me
It is not absent – all the language of ransom, sacrifice, offering, death, etc. harkens back to:
Genesis 22
Exodus 12
Leviticus chapters 1-7 and 16-17
Isaiah 52-53
If you read my article, (and other ones that relate to it), I demonstrate that both aspects of the 2 goats (one slaughtered and one released that carried sins away) are both illustrated in Isaiah 52:13-53:12 – death and slaughter / blood sacrifice and bearing / carrying our sins away.
Dummy, why did your god choose the wrong day to have his son, which was himself, crucified? If there was a “parallel” between your mangod’s sacrifice (btw, we are still waiting to find out what exactly was sacrificed) and Yom Kippur, then why was he crucified on Passover, a completely different day?
Hi Ken thanks for the reply. I think you’ve misunderstood the point that I and the rabbi were making. That the NT authors DIDNâT know about said âparallelâ and instead haphazardly used the Passover for the atonement of sins instead. If Yom Kippur is the true parallel then why is it absent from the NT? the language of ransom, sacrifice, offering, death, in relation to the passover can be found in the NT but not Yom Kippur. I’ll just ask you directly, can you provide just one explicit reference of Yom Kippur from the NT?
Hi Ken thanks for answering my past questions. Heres a new one to entertain you’re time. when the sacrificial atonement occurred, did the divine nature of Jesus(a.s) suffer?
yes or no? please reply when you have the time.
Jesus as one unified Person died and suffered. The Divine Nature is not affected by death or physical issues. That is whey Jesus rose from the dead and proved His death was an effective atonement and also proved He is God by nature – the God-man. John 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8. You keep asking questions which divide the 2 natures. I understand why from an Islamic viewpoint, that you want to keep driving that point home. That is why the early church in 431 AD at the council of Ephesus decided that Nestorianism (dividing the 2 natures too much of an emphasis into 2 persons) was wrong and a heresy.
“The Divine Nature is not affected by death or physical issues.”
So the divine nature did not suffer, got it.
“You keep asking questions which divide the 2 natures.”
I’m just trying to understand the intricacies of the hypostatic union as well as you’re specific views on the mater. When Christians say jesus is God and that he suffered and died for our sins it only makes sense to ask if God(or the divine nature) can suffer and die.
“Jesus as one unified Person died and suffered. The Divine Nature is not affected by death or physical issues.”
are you saying then that within the pagan “unity” only a divine natureless PERSON was suffering ?
x (person)= y (human being) and z (divine being)
you are saying that z is not affected by death. what do you have left? you have xy left. how was xy left. you have to force a “unity” even though you have made x DIVINE natureless WHEN x is suffering .
temple is such a pagan retard that he doesn’t see that he completely makes jesus fully human without even realizing it. like dale tuggy says, they are told to repeat doctrinal statements without analyzing them. once they analyse them, they start to commit heresies like william lane craig does.
ken temple is a coward. he is allowed to copy and paste his missionary crap on this blog, but when i recently tried to post link against jesus’ “resurrection,” he still has not RELEASED the post. coward krister .
Genesis 22 – blessing to all nations, Abraham rejoiced to see My day, John 3:16
Exodus 12 – Passover – John the baptist – behold, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. John 1:29
Leviticus 1-7; 16-17 – Yom Kippur
I Kings – Solomon’s temple sacrifices
Isaiah 52 – 53 – both aspects of 1. substitutionary slaughter and 2. carrying or bearing our sins away (harkens back to the 2 goats of the day of atonement / Yom Kippur
LOL!! Passover had nothing to do with the atonement of sins, you idiot! Therefore, it was the wrong day for your mangod to be sacrificed. It is not a surprise that only the Gospel of John quotes John the Baptist referring to Exodus 12 and the Passover sacrifice. The idiot author did not know that the Passover sacrifice did not “take away sins”.
As for the 2 goats of YOM KIPPUR, again, it was on the wrong day. You just proved it again! LOL!! It was supposed to Yom Kippur, not Passover. Your god severely miscalculated on when to get crucified.
LOL – yes it does. The blood had to be applied to protect from the wrath of God / judgment – only a sacrifice and application and believe in the blood sacrifice / atonement protects you from the wrath / justice of God.
“LOL â yes it does. The blood had to be applied to protect from the wrath of God / judgment â only a sacrifice and application and believe in the blood sacrifice / atonement protects you from the wrath / justice of God.”
LOL – no, it doesn’t, you idiot. You exhibit the same ignorance as the idiot who wrote the Gospel of John. The blood was not meant for ATONEMENT OF SINS, dummy. The words “atonement” or “sins” do not appear even once in Exodus 12. Give it up, moron. No one is falling for your crosstian propaganda.
“LOL â yes it does. The blood had to be applied to protect from the wrath of God / judgment â only a sacrifice and application and believe in the blood sacrifice / atonement protects you from the wrath / justice of God.”
clearly shows that this pagan think that blood has some kind of magic in it.
The blood was applied because it was symbolic for the works, deeds, rituals of the hebrews in which yhwh was pleased. It had nothing to do with your faithless coward “messiah”
God the eternal Son, in complete fellowship eternally with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, One God in three persons; voluntarily became human, so if He decided to do this (the incarnation and the atonement and the resurrection) for our salvation, out of love, then it is not sinful “human sacrifice” in the way you are thinking of it. God (the Son) in unity with the Father and the Holy Spirit, can become incarnate if He wants to and be the atonement if He wants to.
This is the proof (as if we needed more) that this guy is completely and utterly brainwashed. There is no reasoning with such a pathetic zombie.
So “God” decides that human sacrifices are an abomination, but meanwhile, his plan all along was to act as a human sacrifice to appease himself so he could forgive mankind’s sins. Wow. Just wow.
In short and in essence, fundamental Christian soteriology, without ifs and buts, teaches that God told people in no ambiguous terms that killing is so horrible that even His grace is defeated by it but this same prohibited deed– a humiliating death by murder, an act that He outlawed as sinful –that overpowers His grace is what He chose and planned for Himself and it is the only way to earn His grace and earn oneself a ticket to eternal bliss. A sinful process is a salvific process or truer to the first paragraph, in mortal sin is salvific promise! Would one be at risk of anathema if one came up with an eleventh commandment to mirror the salvific dogma of Christianity? But the Christian gospel is the gospel of love and that gospel of love is the gospel of the cross without which all is lost. So in fact what might be an eleventh commandment may turn out to be the first and most important commandment of all: Thou shall kill your God that He may forgive you all your sins.
Let us try to unravel this mystery together or have you had enough headache for a lifetime just having to read this?
So in a match between the Sixth Commandment and the Christian Cross, which would emerge victorious?
My money is with the Sixth Commandment and I would even stake my life on it. As Proncell Johnson writes, ” God also told us via the Ten Commandments, “:thou shalt not kill.” He would not contradict His own commandments! This is what we would expect of pagan gods, but not of the God of love!”
I have lost 47 pounds in the last few months. That was an old picture and I was also very tired at the time. But your photoshop and mockery and lying is bad.
Good job on the weight loss. May God make it easy for you and may you be grateful for His favors that He alone bestowed upon you with no help or partners.
LOL
That is a clever one-liner. smart and snarky. David Wood type humor . . .
Praise God that the NT and sound doctrine and the Holy Spirit and God’s providence and sovereignty and love and wisdom give us health and brains and minds that help us true believers with the truth of the revelation of the NT over what you are trying to figure out with your puny minds. Islam is a false religion.
LOL, but you crosstians haven’t been able to figure out the contradictions in your pagan religion. No wonder you and Holmes are struggling to explain the fatal flaws in Christianity! đ
you are welcome to and free to your opinion. But the historical facts are on the NT and Christianity side of 600 years of establishment before Islam ever came around. Muhammad’s claims are just one man’s subjective claims in the desert and his ability and power to create an aggressive / war-like / unjust religion that does not fit with the world today. You can call it “pagan” all you want, but the Qur’an unwittingly and ignorantly affirmed the previous revelations as sent down from God. Later . . . oops . . . .
Kennywise the sewer clown, your idiotic opinions don’t matter. You have been refuted on all of your claims against the true religion of Islam. Your paganism and hatred of pure monotheism have corrupted your mind. You follow the opinions of the false apostle Paul, a man who never met Jesus. So, Paul’s claims were subjective. Paul was a heretic flown, just like you. And you both will rot in hell for your heresy.
And no, idiot, the Quran does not “affirm” your pathetic scripture. You’ve been schooled on this as well.
Besides, your NT unwittingly and ignorantly contradicts the Tanakh e.g., Ezekiel, the Passover sacrifice, human sacrifice, etc. Oops…
You have never refuted anything. The NT and history proves you are wrong; and they rule over you, though you don’t see the truth. Jesus is Lord and commands you to repent of your false religion.
Sure, sure Kennywise. Keep telling yourself that like the braindead broken record that you are. Us reasonable people are content to live in the real world. Your NT is a poorly written, poorly thought-out collection of garbage written by ignorant people. Your pagan god has no power over me. The True God, the God of Jesus, commands you to repent of false, pagan religion.
sure sure Faizywise, keep telling yourself that – you are dead in your sins, so you cannot get it until causes you to wake up from your soul that is now in bondage to sin. You will is in bondage and you cannot even choose the right way.
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.
Ephesians 2:1-3
Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your fatherâs desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. ”
Faizywise – you are dead in your sins, so you cannot get it until God causes you to wake up from your soul that is now in bondage to sin. You will is in bondage and you cannot even choose the right way.
Jesus says to Faizywise:
John 8:34
“Truly Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.”
By the way, Kennywise, the idiotic NT authors also unwittingly and ignorantly quoted from apocryphal and non-canonical books like the Book of Enoch. These guys were clueless!
In general, three passages from the New Testament are widely regarded by scholars as pointing to the angels-interpretation because of their dependency on the story from 1 Enoch, these being 1 Peter 3:19-20, 2 Peter 2:4, and Jude 6-7.[27]Â Here are the passages:
1 Peter 3:19-20
âAfter being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spiritsâto those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.â
2 Peter 2:4
âFor if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;â
Jude 6-7
âAnd the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwellingâthese he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.â
To most modern Christians, the attempt to link these passages to the angels-interpretation might seem unwarranted, but the fact is that even though these passages do not explicitly refer to angel-human intercourse (which was mentioned in 1 Enoch), they do refer to the imprisonment of angels for some sins they had committed. Indeed, 1 Peter 3 links their sin to the time of Noah (peace be upon him), which lines up well with the Genesis account, and Jude 6-7 likens the sins of the angels to âsexual immorality and perversionâ, like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.[28]Â According to 1 Enoch, 13:1-2, Enoch warned the chief angel Azazel:
ââŠthou shalt have no peace: a severe sentence has gone forth against thee to put thee in bonds: And thou shalt not have toleration nor request granted to theeâŠâ
Taken together, there is little doubt that the New Testament writers were familiar with the Enoch-story and the imprisonment of the âWatchersâ for the sin of cohabitating with human women and teaching mankind all manner of evil deeds. Moreover, they referred to this story in their writings. Doedens notes that since the story from 1 Enoch was so well-known at the time:
ââŠif Jude would not have wanted to allude to this sin of the angels as reported in this tradition, he should have explicitly emphasised this.â[29]
He notes the same for 2 Peter 2:4â7 as well.[30]
           For 1 Peter 3:18-20, the more âdifficultâ of the three verses to interpret in Doedensâ view, the word âspiritsâ is the key. He explains that:
â[i]n the New Testament the plural ÏΜΔÏΌαÏα, âspiritsâ, is usually accompanied by a qualifier which leaves no question as to whom the word refers. In most occurrences, the reference is to non-human beings. The rare use of the word without further qualification refers in most cases to supernatural (malevolent) beings.â[31]
           Perry singles out Jude specifically as a clear reference to 1 Enoch. He makes the following observation:
â[a]lthough filled with references to the Hebrew Bible and Jewish traditions, Jude gives prominence to 1 Enoch by quoting it directly. Enoch continued to be quoted authoritatively by Christians until it was rejected by opponents to millennialism.â[32]
So, contrary to modern Christian interpretations, all three verses consistently point to the angels-interpretation of Genesis 6.
           Scholars have also noted parallels between the Gospel of Matthew and 1 Enoch.[33] For example, we can compare Matthew 22:13 with 1 Enoch 10:4:
Matthew 22:13
âThen the king told the attendants, âTie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.ââ
1 Enoch 10:4
âAnd again the Lord said to Raphael: âBind Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an openingâŠâ
Again, to modern Christians, this âparallelâ would not necessarily imply that Matthew was using 1 Enoch as a source or that he considered it to be a reliable book. But, as with the passages like Jude 6-7, when we consider that the Enoch-story was very well-known to Jews at the time, they would have immediately recognized the allusion to 1 Enoch 10:4 and the binding of Azazel (the leader of the Watchers). Other such parallels include Matthewâs use of the âSon of Manâ concept, which scholars have noted is similar to the way the Book of Parables interprets Daniel 7,[34]Â and Matthew 24:36-44, which refers to âthe days of Noahâ and Godâs imminent judgement.[35]Â Â Â
           But there is one more passage (mentioned with variations in the Synoptic gospels) which may have been based on the Enoch-story, and one that has not received as much attention. Readers will remember that the Christian apologist Ken Templeâs main argument against the angels-interpretation was that the gospels indicate that there will be no marriage in heaven (as Mark 12:25, Matthew 22:30, and Luke 20:34-36). However, in the previous article, we discussed a few reasons why this appeal does not refute the claim that the âsons of Godâ in Genesis 6 were angels, foremost among them being that Genesis 6 was referring to marriage and sexual intercourse on earth, and not in heaven. Moreover, the gospels do not state that it will be impossible to get married, only that marriage will not occur. Also, in the Bible, angels were able to act like humans while on earth (e.g., they ate food).
           Doedens also refutes the appeal to the gospels on these grounds. He states:
â[t]he answer implies that angels do not marry but does not state that angels cannot marry. It neither implies that fallen angels never could have had sexual relationships. The Old Testament recounts that angels in earthly appearance are âdressed as men, eat, drink, walk and are subject to being molested (Gen.18:1,2,8; 19:1,5)â, as Van Gemeren formulates. There is, then, no reason to exclude before-hand the possibility of sexual relationships entered into by angels.â[36]
           But there may be another reason why the appeal to the gospels doesnât work. In fact, it may even backfire. As the passages state, Jesus (peace be upon him) claimed that there is no marriage in heaven. Does that mean that angels could not descend to earth and marry humans? Was Jesusâ alleged claim even unique? As it turns out, it was not. The same idea was already known to Jews and was circulating centuries before Jesus (peace be upon him) was even born. Ironically, it has come to us from one major pre-Christian source, and that is none other than 1 Enoch! In chapter 15 of the âBook of the Watchersâ, it states (emphasis ours):
âAnd though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those also do who die and perish. Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. But you were formerly spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling.â[37]
We can see a clear parallel between the alleged saying of Jesus (peace be upon him) in the gospels with 1 Enoch. Professor Lee McDonald (Acadia Divinity College) states:
â[t]he similarity here is in the thought that angels do not marry and neither do those who go from this life to the next.â[38]
So what Jesus (allegedly) said was nothing new or unique. It was not a new teaching, but it was certainly not mentioned anywhere in the Tanakh. In fact, the earliest extant source for this teaching, which predates Jesusâ birth by around 200 years, is the same source that also narrated the story of angels having sexual intercourse with humans on earth! Thus, to the author of 1 Enoch, having no wives in the spiritual realm did not mean that the spirits could not descend to earth and take wives and have children. Readers should also recall that Enochic literature was very important to the Essenes, whereas the denial of the resurrection was the belief of their rivals, the Sadducees. In Mark, Matthew, and Luke, Jesusâ response was directed at none other than the Sadducees. This is further evidence to refute the Christian use of Mark 12:25, Matthew 22:30, and Luke 20:34-36 to deny the angels-interpretation for Genesis 6.
Kennywise, I’m still waiting for you to explain why you don’t obey your mangod. Is it because you don’t actually have the holy spirit? You’re full of something else? đ€Ł
this guy in the picture (fully penny wise and fully human) is not allowing the link to go through. you are doing the same shit that the writers of acts did, allow the judaizers FEW lines….in my case , u r not even allowing ONE link to go through.
fat pig of jesus wrote:
Jesus Al Masih fulfills ALL the OT sacrifices.
/////
response: assumes that the sacrifices were NECESSARY. assumes that the SHEDDING of blood is the ONLY way. here are your TEACHERS telling u that you are selling shit dressed up as a body on a cross:
////
The Hebrew Bible never states that sacrifices are unconditionally necessary. That’s the first thing to get out of the way. No where does the Hebrew Bible say that one who is unable to give sacrifices is either violating God’s instruction or irredeemable. Sacrifices are an external act of worship which are conditionally required, and those conditions (namely a Temple) do not currently exist.
When King David was unable to bring offerings, he did not despair. He did not bemoan that he was going against God’s will and instruction. He did not conclude that he was unable to properly worship God. No, this is what David writes (Ps. 51:17-19):
O Lord, open my lips, and let my mouth declare Your praise. You do not want me to bring sacrifices; You do not desire burnt offerings; True sacrifice to God is a contrite spirit; God, You will not despise a contrite and crushed heart.
So we, as Jews unable to bring offerings to a Temple, know that it’s okay. God does not want us to bring physical sacrifices when doing so is impossible. God demands that we offer what we are able to offer. So we offer to God ourselves; our repentant hearts. This is enough, just as it was for King David. All the while we hope for a day when Jerusalem is restored and we actually will be able to worship God with physical sacrifices. Just as David did, in the lines immediately following the aforementioned verses (Ps. 51:20-21):
May it please You to make Zion prosper; rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. Then You will want sacrifices offered in righteousness, burnt and whole offerings; then bulls will be offered on Your altar.
We also know that during the time that the Temple stood, there were people who were unable to bring sacrifices to Jerusalem. These people may have thought themselves lost and unable to worship God in an acceptable manner. To these people, Hosea declares (Hos. 14:3/2):
Take words with you And return to the Lord. Say to Him: Forgive all guilt And accept what is good; And we will pay with the bulls our lips.
When one goes to give a sacrifice, one gives what he is able. A wealthy man may bring a bull, a poor man only grain. When one is unable to physically bring anything at all, in place of bulls one offers the prayers of his lips. This is enough, and God will accept it. This is what we do now, we bring our prayers to God just as those in the past did.
Living without a Temple actually isn’t even a new thing. After all, Solomon’s Temple was destroyed long ago and there were Jews who had to live without a Temple until the building of the Second Temple. These Jews knew what to do, for Solomon provides instruction for living without a Temple. At the dedication of the First Temple, Solomon speaks before the people, saying (1 Kings 8:46-50):
When they sin against Youâfor there is no man who does not sinâand You are angry with them and deliver them to the enemy, and their captors carry them off to an enemy land, near or far; and then they take it to heart in the land to which they have been carried off, and they repent and make supplication to You in the land of their captors, saying: âWe have sinned, we have acted perversely, we have acted wickedly,â and they turn back to You with all their heart and soul, in the land of the enemies who have carried them off, and they pray to You in the direction of their land which You gave to their fathers, of the city which You have chosen, and of the House which I have built to Your nameâ oh, give heed in Your heavenly abode to their prayer and supplication, uphold their cause, and pardon Your people who have sinned against You for all the transgressions that they have committed against You.
So that’s just what the Jewish people did. When they were in Babylon, they turned toward Jerusalem and prayed. The Jews in Babylonian Exile didn’t conclude that some guy who happened to die during the time of the First Temple must’ve been a final sacrifice. No, they held to the Jewish faith, prayed facing Jerusalem, and awaited a time of restoration. If they had not done so, if they had instead abandoned the Jewish faith, then there would never have been a Second Temple and there would never have been a Jesus. So surely a Christian must assert that the Jews of the Babylonian Exile were doing nothing wrong in offering their prayers as they face Jerusalem, and we Jews in the present are only doing what those Jews of the past did.
What Jews do today is offer prayer to God at any time a sacrifice might otherwise be required. This is exactly what Jews of the past did. If one reads through the Hebrew Bible, I think the Jewish position is pretty evidently supported. The Hebrew Bible tells all who live without a Temple that prayer and doing what is good will always be acceptable before God. The Hebrew Bible never seems to support the notion that sacrifices are immutably necessary or that there will be a final, human sacrifice to end all sacrifices.
Sometimes propitiation is in view. Sometimes expiation.
Passover is propitiation of sin because it is not a response to a specific act of sin which needs to be expiated.
Romans 3:25
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
1 John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 4:10
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Muslims seem to have blinkers on and see only expiation but not propitiation of sin and limit atonement to expiation of sin.
Lol, another Christian crashes and burns! Iggy/Erasmus/Holmes, it is quite noticeable that you quoted your NT for this pathetic apologetic explanation and brought nothing from the Tanakh.
The fact of the matte is that the Passover sacrifice had NOTHING to do with sin. Your pathetic wordplay (proposition vs expiration) is just more mental gymnastics.
The tabernacle and the priesthood, which were specifically revealed to make atonement for the people, were not yet instituted at the time of the passover.
This is another reason why the word atonement is not used in connection with the passover.
The one is a divine means, i.e. killing the firstborn. The other is purely a human means, killing the animal, of making atonement.
Oh for the love of God…you guys are truly shameless!
Even if the tabernacle and priesthood were not yet instituted, what about when they were? Where does the Bible after Exodus clarify that the Passover sacrifice was really meant for atonement? Go ahead. Give one verse from the Tanakh which clarifies this.
The passover contained an element of ransom in addition to propitiation. To deliver the people by a ransom, the lives of the firstborn, from slavery in Egypt and to turn away the wrath of the angel of the Lord. It was a commemoration of a unique redemptive event. So it did point to Christ. It was fitting to refer to this in the gospel.
“The passover contained an element of ransom in addition to propitiation.”
it was burnt ,eaten and digested. was the burial of poop symbolic for the burial of ur god-man?
ransom
/Ërans(É)m/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a sum of money demanded or paid for the release of a captive
/////
the jews weren’t held captive, they were doing deeds . the blood symbolized their deeds and their disgust for lamb gods.
killing the egyptian gods (lambs)
propitiation
/prÉËpÉȘÊÉȘËeÉȘÊ(É)n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: propitiation; plural noun: propitiations
the action of propitiating or appeasing a god, spirit, or person.
the deeds, acts and obedience. works/rituals.
13And the blood will be for you for a sign upon the houses where you will be, and I will see the blood and skip over you, and there will be no plague to destroy [you] when I smite the [people of the] land of Egypt.
“To deliver the people by a ransom, the lives of the firstborn, from slavery in Egypt and to turn away the wrath of the angel of the Lord”
no ransom. no propiation in crosstian sense. nothing to do with sins.
Sorry Moses does not agree with you man. You miserable loser.
Exodus 15:16
Fear and dread shall fall upon them; by the greatness of thine arm they shall be as still as a stone; till thy people pass over, O LORD, till the people pass over, which thou hast purchased.
1Then Moses and the children of Israel sang this song to the Lord, and they spoke, saying, I will sing to the Lord, for very exalted is He; a horse and its rider He cast into the sea.
2The Eternal’s strength and His vengeance were my salvation; this is my God, and I will make Him a habitation, the God of my father, and I will ascribe to Him exaltation.
6Your right hand, O Lord, is most powerful; Your right hand, O Lord, crushes the foe.
8And with the breath of Your nostrils the waters were heaped up; the running water stood erect like a wall; the depths congealed in the heart of the sea.
9[Because] the enemy said, I will pursue, I will overtake, I will share the booty; my desire will be filled from them; I will draw my sword, my hand will impoverish them.
10You blew with Your wind, the sea covered them; they sank like lead in the powerful waters.
11Who is like You among the powerful, O Lord? Who is like You, powerful in the holy place? Too awesome for praises, performing wonders!
16May dread and fright fall upon them; with the arm of Your greatness may they become as still as a stone, until Your people cross over, O Lord, until this nation that You have acquired crosses over.
26And He said, If you hearken to the voice of the Lord, your God, and you do what is proper in His eyes, and you listen closely to His commandments and observe all His statutes, all the sicknesses that I have visited upon Egypt I will not visit upon you, for I, the Lord, heal you
đ€Ł Oh man, this guy with his laughable excuses! It kills me!
So, am I correct to assume that you cannot answer my question and that there in NOTHING in the Tanakh that links the Passover sacrifice to atonement for sins?
And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I REDEEM.
Unleavened bread shall be eaten for seven days; no leavened bread shall be seen in your possession, and no leaven shall be seen among you in all your territory. 8 You shall tell your child on that day, âIt is because of what the Lord did for me when I came out of Egypt.â 9 It shall serve for you as a sign on your hand and as a reminder on your forehead, so that the teaching of the Lord may be on your lips; for with a strong hand the Lord brought you out of Egypt. 10 You shall keep this ordinance at its proper time from year to year.
11 âWhen the Lord has brought you into the land of the Canaanites, as he swore to you and your ancestors, and has given it to you, 12 you shall set apart to the Lord all that first opens the womb. All the firstborn of your livestock that are males shall be the Lordâs. 13 But every firstborn donkey you shall redeem with a sheep; if you do not redeem it, you must break its neck. Every firstborn male among your children you shall redeem. 14 When in the future your child asks you, âWhat does this mean?â you shall answer, âBy strength of hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery. 15 When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from human firstborn to the firstborn of animals. Therefore I sacrifice to the Lord every male that first opens the womb, but every firstborn of my sons I redeem.â 16 It shall serve as a sign on your hand and as an emblem[a] on your forehead that by strength of hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt.â
so is this symbolic for your pagan god? was ur pagan jesus sacrificed for the first born?
“What does this mean?â you shall answer, âBy strength of hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery. 15 When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from human firstborn to the firstborn of animals.”
this is a god who took out a grudge on first born and the jews are meant to remember this through works/rituals/acts/deeds.
this has nothing to do with jewish sin, but everything to do with pharoahs defiance and how god through the works of the jews , rescued them.
the key here is that without WORKS god will not do the work for u.
“Squawking the same words over and over again like a parrot. What Muslims do when they have no argument.”
LOL, I think you confused me with you fellow pagan zombie, Kennywise.
You have no argument, dummy. I asked you a question and you cannot answer. So what do you do?
“Muslim:
Killing firstborn is bad. Killing Jews and other infidels en masse is good.”
LOL!! Yep, crosstians deflect when they are cornered!
Before we get distracted by your pathetic attempt to deflect, I ask again:
Where does the Tanakh say that the Passover sacrifice was for the atonement of sins? Can you give me just ONE VERSE?
Now, let’s discuss your pathetic deflection. Yeah, killing innocent children is wrong and evil. Your god had a serious problem with ordering the murders of infants and children. He also had a problem with ordering the killing of non-Jews (infidels) en masse. I think you confused the commands of your god with Islam.
You see, dummy, Islam does not command “killing Jews and other infidels en masse”. It certainly does not command killing children. That is all from your god. We don’t follow that made-up god.
Holmes: Killing Jews and other infidels en masse is good…
Oh please. Historically, Christendom has been the leading killer of Jews. There’s a reason why the Holocaust took place in Europe rather than Muslim lands.
What Jesus was really âgetting atâ is clearly perceived by the shrewd Wright, butâso it is statedâwas not perceived by his own contemporaries. The claim that Jesusâ real purposes were painfully misunderstood is, however, an old, hackneyed apologetic deviceâalready used in the Gospelsâwhose untenable nature can be easily proved. On the one hand, establishing a yawning chasm between Jesus and his disciples is, however repeated in scholarship, utterly counter-intuitive. It was Jesus who chose his group, who held them as his disciples throughout his public life, and who sent them to preach in his name, so he must have checked that they were not too obtuse; after all, Jesusâ delegation of power and authority to the disciples is often seen in Mark,39 and the notion that âHe who receives you receives meâ is ascribed to him in the Gospels.40 On the other hand, Jesusâ message was not complex enough as to be misunderstood by other people, even less by those who listened at him every day and had the opportunity to grasp the point.41
Therefore
what the disciples wanted and expected must have agreed with Jesusâ own goals and expectations, at least during his lifetime. If the disciples waited for an integral redemption of Israel according to the Davidic, traditional view of kingshipâsuch as can be inferred from passages like Luke 24:21 and Acts 1:6â, Jesus must have expected it too. The ceaseless attempts to dissociate Jesus from the expectations generated by his claims are historically and psychologically implausible, and even verge on the nonsensical.
All this ignites suspicion, especially so because Wrightâs and many othersâ claim that Jesus redefined kingship is inextricably interwoven with the (explicit or implicit) use of a rhetorical trope of subversionâ Jesusâ depiction of an ideal ruler as a servant would entail a deeply countercultural moveâwhose ideological and apologetic character has been compellingly exposed.42 Of course, that something has an apologetic value does not mean that it is false, so we cannot rule out in advance the possibility that he somehow carried out such a redefinition. But what are the actual arguments supporting that contention?
As far as I can see, a key role in this kind of reasoning is played by the interpretation of a few Gospel passages. Typical âproof textsâ are Mark 9:33â37 (and parallels), where disciples are reprimanded by Jesus for arguing about âwho (was) the greatest,â and are instructed that whoever wishes to be the first must be last of all (ÏÎŹÎœÏÏÎœ áŒÏÏαÏÎżÏ) and servant of all (ÏÎŹÎœÏÏÎœ ÎŽÎčÎŹÎșÎżÎœÎżÏ). The most adduced pericope is, however, Mark 10:35â45 and parallels (Matthew 20:20â28 // Luke 22:24â27), where an ostensibly sharp disjunction is drawn between political authority structures and Jesusâ community. In this text, civil hierarchies function as a negative foil to the ideals recommended for the Twelve: the rulers of the Gentiles âexercise lordship overâ (ÎșαÏαÎșÏ ÏÎčΔÏÎżÏ ÏÎčÎœ) or âhave power overâ (ÎșαÏÎ”ÎŸÎżÏ ÏÎčÎŹÎ¶ÎżÏ ÏÎčÎœ) (Mark 10:42) their subjects, âbut it is not to be so among youâ (ÎżáœÏ ÎżáœÏÏÏ ÎŽÎ áŒÏÏÎčÎœ áŒÎœ áœÎŒáżÎœ) (Mark 10:43).
Instead, greatness and pre-eminence are intimately linked to the function of servant (ÎŽÎčÎŹÎșÎżÎœÎżÏ) or slave (ΎοῊλοÏ), echoing the self-offering service of the Son of Man (Mark 10:45). As I have already remarked, according to many scholars, the depiction of an ideal ruler as a servant of his subjects which is carried out in these passages would entail a subversive, countercultural move. This is, however, a rather dubious claim. There are at least two aspects, closely intertwined, that are usually overlooked by those advancing such
a claim. The first one is that the idea of a ruler as a servant was wellknown both in the Jewish tradition and the Greco-Roman culture. The second one is the possible (rather probable) rhetorical dimension of the statements put forward in support of the alleged redefinition. Below I am sequentially tackling these two aspects
**********************
a claim. The first one is that the idea of a ruler as a servant was wellknown both in the Jewish tradition and the Greco-Roman culture. The second one is the possible (rather probable) rhetorical dimension of the statements put forward in support of the alleged redefinition. Below I am sequentially tackling these two aspects
the ruler As A servAnt In JewIsh And greCo-romAn trAdItIons Although Politics in the ancient world was usually the field of rulers exercising a harsh power over their subjects, obtaining ascendancy or command over others could also involve the use of more sophisticated devices and ideologies. As Moshe Weinfeld argued several decades ago, the concept of the king as servant of the people, the roots of which could be glimpsed in the Ancient Near East, is expressed in the Hebrew Bible.43 In 1 Kings 12:7, when the people rose up against King Rehoboam, he was counselled by his elders, who address the king in connection with a lightening of the tax-burden of the kingdom, saying: If you will be a servant (ebed) to those people today and serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be your servants forever.
Although such a humble, servile view of kingship must have seemed awkward and hard to swallow to some scribes,44 that notion makes sense as an essential element of Israelite political understanding, precisely because criticism to kingship as conveyed in the Bible was focused on the dangers of those kings seeing themselves as the masters of a nation of servants and behaving as tyrannical monarchs. The text of 1 Kings 12:7 makes plain that servingâand even the discourse on servingâis a strategic move, the outcome of which brings benefits for the ruler: if the king shows benevolence towards his subjects, they will respond with goodwill and loyalty towards him, precisely because everyone (except, of course, people suffering from masochistic personality disorder) wants to be treated with kindness
The possibility that this notion reached the classical Greek world from the East cannot be ruled out. Be that as it may, a classical expression of the view of the ideal ruler as servant is found in the Greco-Roman world, to the extent that it was virtually a commonplace or topos in the political philosophy of Hellenistic kingship, even if many works of this period are irretrievably lost. The concept was epitomized by the Macedonian philosopher-king Antigonos Gonatas (ca. 320â239 B.C.E.) in his rebuke to his son regarding the oppression of citizens: âDo you not understand, my son, that our kingdom is a noble servitude (áŒÎœÎŽÎżÎŸÎżÎœ ΔጶΜαÎč ÎŽÎżÏ Î»Î”ÎŻÎ±Îœ)?â46 Although most works and fragments of âOn Kingshipâ (ÏΔÏ᜶ ÎČαÏÎčλΔίαÏ) treatises cannot be dated with precision, they are usually put well before the writing of the New Testament
This claim is supported by the fact that Plato portrayed the true ruler as a servant of his subjects.47 And this servanthood could entail the offering of life. Dio Cassius claims the Roman emperor Otho (69 C.E.) said to his supporters during his civil war with Vitellius: Surely it is far better and far more just that one should perish for all than many for one (Ïολáœș ÎłÎŹÏ ÏÎżÏ Îșα᜶ ÎșÏΔáżÏÏÎżÎœ Îșα᜶ ÎŽÎčÎșαÎčÏÏΔÏÏÎœ áŒÏÏÎčÎœ áŒÎœÎ± áœÏáœČÏ ÏÎŹÎœÏÏÎœ áŒą ÏολλοáœșÏ áœÏáœČÏ áŒÎœáœžÏ áŒÏολÎÏΞαÎč), and that I should refuse on account of one man alone to embroil the Roman people in civil war and cause so great a multitude of human beings to perish [âŠ] I shall free myself [scil. I will take my own life], that all people may learn from this that you chose for your emperor one who would not give you for himself, but rather himself for you (ᜠÏÏÎčÏ ÎżáœÏ áœÎŒáŸ¶Ï áœÏáœČÏ áŒÎ±Ï ÏοῊ áŒÎ»Î»â áŒÎ±Ï Ï᜞Μ áœÏáœČÏ áœÎŒáż¶Îœ ÎŽÎÎŽÏÎșΔ).48 Analogies with Mark 10:45 are obvious. Both passages present an important, single figure (the âSon of Man,â the emperor) ready to give (ÎŽÎżáżŠÎœÎ±Îč) his life. Both figures declare his willingness to give it for (áŒÎœÏÎŻ, áœÏÎÏ) other people, somehow inferior. Both passages present an antithetical structure, contrasting such a selfless attitude with the usual behaviour of rulersânot bothering at all about the lives that are lost in order to maintain their own powerâ. Accordingly, both passages present the refusal to sacrifice others as a striking, unexpected move
in the late first century C.E. Plutarch also asserts that Otho answers to his supporters, who ask him to use their souls and bodies for himself: âIf I was worthy to be Roman emperor, I ought to give my life freely for my country (Δጰ ÏáżÏ âÎĄÏÎŒÎ±ÎŻÏÎœ áŒĄÎłÎ”ÎŒÎżÎœÎŻÎ±Ï áŒÎŸÎčÎżÏ ÎłÎÎłÎżÎœÎ±, ÎŽÎ”áż ÎŒÎ” ÏáżÏ áŒÎŒáżÏ ÏÏ ÏáżÏ áœÏáœČÏ ÏáżÏ ÏαÏÏÎŻÎŽÎżÏ áŒÏΔÎčΎΔáżÎœ).â49 And Tacitus portrays Otho saying that he considers exposing brave men to further dangers âtoo great a price (pretium) for my life,â50 and committing suicide in order to prevent the loss of many othersâ life. Other literary sources, earlier than and contemporary with Mark, convey the idea of the self-sacrifice of rulers using ransom language. Euripides depicts Creon, the ruler of Thebes, âready to die to redeem my country (αáœÏáœžÏ ÎŽâ [âŠ] ΞΜáżÏÎșΔÎčÎœ áŒÏÎżÎčÎŒÎżÏ ÏαÏÏÎŻÎŽÎżÏ áŒÎșÎ»Ï ÏÎźÏÎčÎżÎœ),â and he offers himself to save the city, thereby saving also his son Menoeceus.51 The Roman senator Cato is portrayed by the poet Lucan as offering his own life as atonement (piaculum) on behalf of his fellow citizens: he expresses his willingness to become âthe scapegoat for the nationâ; in fact, Cato connects his willingness to die as an imitation of the actions of Decius Mus, the paradigm of devotio, who gave his life to avert the nationâs perils in fourth-century B.C.E. Rome.52 This last example is also particularly illuminating in connection with the language used by Mark 10:45 (ÎżáœÎș ጊλΞΔΜ ÎŽÎčαÎșÎżÎœÎ·ÎžáżÎœÎ±Îč áŒÎ»Î»áœ° ÎŽÎčαÎșÎżÎœáżÏαÎč), as Lucan says elsewhere about Cato that he believed âthat he was born to serve (servare) the whole world and not himself
Another significant example in the Roman world is clearly seen in Senecaâs De beneficiis. Commenting on the virtues of ideal Roman rulers, the philosopher refers to them as men who were glorious, but who passed their lives on a footing equal with others, âhaving justice and unselfishness as their highest authority (pro summo imperio habuerunt iustitiam, abstinentiam), because, instead of sacrificing the state to themselves, they have sacrificed themselves to the state (quia non rem publicam sibi, sed se rei publicae dicauerunt).â That âgood manâ âpreferred to be conquered than to conquer, because in this way he could serve the interest of the state (quoniam ita expediebat rei publicae, uinci quam uincere maluit).â
Furthermore, the combination of rulership and service was also used in the case of the figure of the philosopher; the Cynic tradition in particular conceived a figure who rules, servesâsometimes in a very lowly capacityâand even offers his life as part of his service. But this cluster can also be found in thinkers of other schools. A good number of works written by classical and biblical scholars has made plain that the combination of rulership and service may be set within Greco-Roman traditions.55 After this survey of evidence it ought to be clear that the idea conveyed in Mark 10:42â45 is not at all original, striking or idiosyncratic.56 Of course, there are plenty of instances of rationalization in classical literature of the usual experience in ancient (and modern) world politics, namely, that the many are at the service of a ruler, a king or an emperor.
For instance, in his treatise De clementia Seneca argues that the emperor is to the masses as the mind is to the body. Since the body is entirely at the service of the mind, which holds the state together, it is fitting for many people to die on behalf ofâin order to ransomâa single ruler: âit is not lack of self-worth or of sanity when many thousands face the sword for one individual and when with many deaths they ransom one life of sometimes a feeble old man.â57 A hierarchy akin to that of mind to body existing between the emperor and his subjects means that, just as the body parts serve the mind, the subjects rightly sacrifice themselves on the emperorâs behalf. But the existence of such political ideology does not imply that the discourse of the ruler serving the ruled is absent. Far from it, theâhypothetical or realâwillingness upon the part of rulers to offer their lives on behalf and in place of their subjects was widespread in Greek and Roman literature.
Allow me then also the liberty. Here is a little extract from Raymond Ibrahim’s book: Sword and Scimitar, Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West:
It relates to the “rightly guided” Caliph Sultan Mohamed who conquered Constantinople:
“In 1451, Murad II died and was succeeded by his nineteen-year-old son by a âslave girl of undetermined but probably Christian origin.â This was Muhammad II (r. 1451-1481),* âthe mortal enemy of the Christians,â to quote a contemporary prelate. On becoming sultan his first order was to have his nineteen brothers, including an infant, strangled, and three concubines pregnant by his brothers decapitated. Like that of his great grandfather Bayezid I, young Muhammadâs life exhibited those seemingly contradictory qualities of piety and depravity. âHis passions were at once furious and inexorable.⊠In the palace, as in the field, a torrent of blood was spilt on the slightest provocationâ and âthe noblest of the [male] captive youth were often dishonored by his unnatural lust.”
Great reading recommended for those who are just used to reading the sugar coated revisionist histories of modern apologists for Islam like Karen Armstrong and John Esposito.
Allow me to post a little extract from a book whose title I can’t remember:
“Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”
“When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.”
“In the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.”
“Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.ââ”
Holmes: Allow me then also the liberty. Here is a little extract from Raymond Ibrahimâs book: Sword and Scimitar, Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West:
There’s a reason why Raymond Ibrahim’s books are not published by academic/university presses.
Who claims Mehmed II is “rightly-guided” lol? That title ONLY applies to the first 5. So let’s leave that here as that is a pretty elementary mistake to have made: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashidun_Caliphate
Next, no Muslim has claimed every amir, sultan or caliph in history was righteous and I can give you dozens of worst examples, they were kings like any other leader at the time. Moving you could have just asked as you’re not saying anything not known. The ancient Turk custom was to kill all pretenders to the throne to avoid a civil war. We don’t base our religion on what others do. Very poor argument.
Why don’t you instead read about how to answer the glaring plotholes in your pagan religion instead?
Don’t be silly they only know about peaceful Jesus(as) and surely he wouldn’t approve of such behavior. Plus they only know about mangods…..oohhhh is it the Iliad or some other Greek mythology!!!???
While we’re trying to figure out which book contains these evil passages, allow me the liberty of posting an extract from another book: Battle of the Crusades 1097-1444: From Dorylaeum to Varna:
“Richard, however, did not let them [civilians from Acre] go. Instead, on 20 August [1191], he had them beheaded – men, women, and children – 2600 by his own reckoning. English rationalizers excuse the act by claiming that the English king was simply responding to Saladin’s unwillingness to return the fragment of the Holy Cross; and besides these people had not surrendered immediately after being besieged, a violation of the laws of war. Other chroniclers are not swayed: Richard’s actions were heinous, an egregious and cowardly war crime.”
In this way, the presence of the combination of rulership and service in Jesusâ teachings and the New Testament in general could be accounted for. Be that as it may, what all this means is that the so-called redefinition of kingship in Jesusâ preaching or the ideal of the self-sacrificing ruler does not seem to be a genuine redefinition at all in the sense of something unheard of in the first centuryâs cultural and political context: even if the material usually adduced goes back to the historical Jesus, it cannot be reasonably deemed a novelty. More importantly, such alleged redefinition could hardly be considered as a kind of a truly critical, challenging or subversive position. In order to understand this judgment a second aspect which has a bearing on our topic should be seriously taken into account. I refer to the probable rhetorical dimension of some of Jesusâ statements.
3 For the Lord will pass through to strike down the Egyptians; when he sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over that door and will not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to strike you down. 24 You shall observe this rite as a perpetual ordinance for you and your children. 25 When you come to the land that the Lord will give you, as he has promised, you shall keep this observance. 26 And when your children ask you, âWhat do you mean by this observance?â 27 you shall say, âIt is the passover sacrifice to the Lord, for he passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt, when he struck down the Egyptians but spared our houses.ââ And the people bowed down and worshiped.
/////
here the jews are told to remember again and again yhwhs hate for christian idolatry.
quote:
As much as Jesus did not fulfill Passover through his death, he did not fulfill it through proper observance, either. Jesus uses it as an opportunity for self-aggrandizement, to redirect peopleâs attention from God toward Jesus. Rather than teaching his disciples Torah, rather than teaching them about the great deliverance of Israel, Jesus teaches about himself and his upcoming death. According to Luke, it is at the Passover meal that Jesus teaches: âThis is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of meâ (Lk. 22:19). Jesus perverts the day, making it to be about himself. This, of course, shows that Jesus did not fulfill the day as a Passover lamb as in the previous paragraph, because his death did not refer Israel to the exodus. But it also shows that Jesus did not fulfill the day through observance. Instead, he attempted to overwrite the day to make it be about himself rather than God.
one thing to note here is that the idea of “saving”
“savior”
“salvation”
“to save”
in the crosstian sense is completely missing from the above passage.
christianity changed a story about pagan flesh gods (lambs) into a romance .
in the crosstian sense, the deity is appeased by his own actions . sacrificing himself to himself cools him off. he makes a body and then sheds it to appease himself.
in the hebrew sense, the deity is giving set of instructions and painting is just one of them. when the deity sees that his instructions are obeyed, he does not send “the destroyer” into the peoples houses.
so i will ask the question
, âWhat do you mean by this observance?â
it defines the observance for its readers
you shall say, âIt is the passover sacrifice to the Lord, for he passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt, when he struck down the Egyptians but spared our houses.â
why did he spare the houses? because the diety like his children practiced the KILLING of the pagan egyptian gods/deeds/works/rituals
both are “fighting” in a sense and it is not in the crosstian sense.
Poor Kennywise… đ€„đ€„đ€„
Also because he has difficulty understanding how he’s a liar this clip more or less explains what he does whenever we ask questions on Christian theology or he quotes a “source” like the poor Rabbi:
This is the problem of all pedant christians such as James White and WLC. They have the language to play with, yet they don’t provide an actual answer.
That’s because their religion does not give any answers.
You still don’t know the definition of a lie. You are kind of braindead.
Since I linked to the video, which has the title (that you think defeats my argument, etc.) and lecture and gave the time signature of where to find it, and since I argued with his issue about the Passover, etc.; therefore, I did not lie; I am just using his admission of one aspect of the Day Atonement in Leviticus 16-17, as evidence that Jesus Al Masih is indeed the fulfillment of the OT sacrifices. – Yom Kippur, the day of atonement, and, I would add, the Passover and Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son, etc. and the substitutionary atonement / ransom of the ram in Genesis 22, the temple sacrifices, etc.
I already noted all the areas that the Rabbi disagrees with the Christian interpretation, etc. So, it is not lying.
It may be a “sensational” title, as you wrote (but so is your titles that always has to put the word “lying” or “hypocrite” or “liar” to sensationalize it), and it is our opinion that demonstrates we are right, by the Rabbi’s confession of an analogy. But as you read what I wrote and check it out, there is no “lying” there.
Rabbi Skobac said:
“I want to find an analog for someone that is going to die for general sacrifice for everyoneâs sins. Yom Kippur! We have a day of atonementâŠright, we have the scapegoat that was sent out and on the back of this animal were carried all the sins of the Jewish people, all the sins! A general sacrifice for everything! That would have been a good parallel for Jesus. ”
Therefore did admitted that it is a parallel / analog / analogy.
Therefore I did not lie.
you don’t know the intellectual definition of a lie, therefore you are dumb. You are just using that as a “sensational” title to shut down arguments. Like “Islamophobia” and “Homophobia” and “racism” !! tactics of the liberal socialists, Marxists, secular left.
You have a sensationalized title to shut down thinking and debate, which is typical of many Muslims.
But I appreciate that you linked to my old article and also listened and interacted with the details.
LOL, and we see Kennywise once again being too proud to admit his deception and doubling down on his pathetic polemic!
No, Kennywise, the only one who is braindead is you. Lying scumbags like you revel in false propaganda and distortions. This is the nature of Christian missionaries.
Rabbi Skobac made no such admission that there was a legitimate “parallel”. He was speaking through the point of the view of the idiot who wrote the Gospel of John. This idiot mistakenly used the Passover sacrifice as the “parallel” to Jesus, when the more appropriate sacrifice to use for that purpose was the Yom Kippur sacrifice, because this sacrifice actually had to do with the atonement of sins. The concept of atonement of sins was the “parallel” that the author of the gospel was trying to find. The Passover sacrifice had nothing to do with that. Rabbi Skobac was not admitting that Yom Kippur would be a legitimate parallel vis a vis the Jewish Bible, and he provided numerous reasons why throughout the video. You’re too stupid and proud to admit that you deliberately distorted what Skobac said. You’re just like Paul the false apostle. He also distorted Jewish teachings to spread his pagan religion.
You have been exposed as a liar and a hypocrite. You complain about shutting down “thinking and debate”, yet you are the same clown who does not allow comments on his pathetic blog and also does not allow trackbacks so that your readers can know the other side of the story. You are a scumbag, and you deserve but mockery.
As a side note, the fact that Yom Kippur should have been the correct day for the crucifixion of Jesus (if he was truly to serve as a sacrifice for the atonement of sins) and to fulfill the conditions laid out in the Tanakh, the whole crucifixion narrative in the gospels completely refutes Christianity. The Christian god chose the wrong day to have his son crucified! LOL!!!
no. it is not deceptive when all the argumentation and links to the video, etc. are all there.
Rather, yours is lying about me, because you say I am lying and a hypocrite.
For all I know, you are doing Psychological projection and you want a Caliphate to take over the west and you are doing Taqiyye on us all. You have been exposed as an evil person, and a liar.
“no. it is not deceptive when all the argumentation and links to the video, etc. are all there.
Rather, yours is lying about me, because you say I am lying and a hypocrite.
For all I know, you are doing Psychological projection and you want a Caliphate to take over the west and you are doing Taqiyye on us all. You have been exposed as an evil person, and a liar.”
Dumb loser Kennywise, you are a liar and a hypocrite you piece of garbage.
You blatantly distorted what the rabbi said. We can all see that. Just because you are a piece of garbage who can’t admit his own stupidity, it means nothing.
Your moronic rants only embarrass and expose you further. Now you are lying about Muslims using “taqiyya”! LOL!! Kennywise the filthy sewer clown is showing us his true face!
@ Ken
I don’t put sensational titles it’s pretty basic stuff. You, however, are lying because the average person is not going to watch the video and you know this. Let’s look at what you said:
“Rabbi Admits that the Day of Atonement is parallel to Jesus Christ!”
First off let’s keep it real the average Christian has NO IDEA what the “Day of Atonement” is and they’ll assume it’s the Passover as the authors of the NT said and those Jews are hiding the truth about Jesus’s(as) alleged crucifixion and resurrection.
Next, the man was refuting your beliefs and demonstrating another issue with the alleged “inter-textuality” between the Hebrew Bible and NT. To make your opponent seem to be saying something they are clearly not stating is intellectually dishonest. This is not the first time I’ve seen you do this off the top of my head you did this with Ehrman and the Quran (when he was telling a bad joke and I posted a video when he clearly said there’s nothing that’s been changed) and Carrier when you claimed he said Josephus I believe was the “Strongest argument” the crucifixion had (when he really meant this is the strongest argument you have and once I refute this the rest of the evidence is nothing)
Now from your article, you made a strawman regarding the Passover and didn’t refute his argument.
You then quote propaganda about Isaiah 53 with just nonsensical statement s like:
“Isaiah 52:14 â âHis appearance was marred more than any manâ â refers to the beatings and sufferings of the brutal crucifixion. He was so disfigured that the disciples did not recognize Him when He rose from the dead, because the last memories of His dis-figurement was so seared into their brains.”
What??? No matter how much I see someone get beatdown I know what they look like later. One can’t help but smile at the irony of you saying he made quote: “false arguments”.
But anyway yeah this is one of the many examples of missionary dishonesty which is why everyone has to check EVERY source claimed.
“You, however, are lying because the average person is not going to watch the video and you know this.”
You also don’t know the intellectual definition of a lie.
No I don’t “know that”. I expected them and you (finally Faizywisey evil heart listened to the whole thing) to check it out and listen and see the whole thing. Now you are lying about me.
The sensational titles is about Faizywise the lying evil heart.
Hey Kennywise, you keep ignoring my question. Why are you disobeying your mangod and not turning the other cheek? Your lame comebacks are laughable, but they expose you as a disobedient crosstian. You are a bad crosstian for not obeying your mangod.
Kennywise, why are you ignoring my question? Why are you disobeying your god? Do you not have the holy spirit?
@ Ken
Why argue about this? From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of liar
: a person who tells lies
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liar
Under entry of lie definition 2:
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie
So there you have it you are the literal definition of a liar.
As I said, man you can play these games with your (mostly retarded some gullible) readers but you can’t get that off on me. As noted if this was the case you would allow pingbacks and comments but it’s a controlled information feed that the average Christian goes in and swallows it up and thus you spread fearmongering and propaganda. Again, like how you gave a “response” article to me and didn’t even address a thing I wrote but declared victory.
i have addressed your pathetic “al mesia” abraham beat jesus’ “faith”
jesus faith was weak and he cried like a coward on cross.
I don’t read you nutty articles. Finally one short enough to read and understand. Genesis 22 was already established centuries before Islam, and the NT proper understanding of it – that Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his only beloved son Isaac was a foreshadowing of John 3:16 and the replacement / substitute of the ram for the sinful human was a foreshadowing of the ransom sacrifice – both in Leviticus, Isaiah 52-53 and the whole NT.
I don’t read your nutty articles was meant for mr.heathcliff. you have too much cursing, dirty language, long ranting, bad grammar, bad spelling – you are a waste of time. I can only comment on your stuff if is short and understandable. Most of your stuff is not even comprehensible.
“Genesis 22 was already established centuries before Islam, ”
this has nothing to do with how abrahams faith was greater than jesus’ , you fukin moron.
“and the NT proper understanding of it â that Abrahamâs willingness to sacrifice his only beloved son Isaac was a ”
The nt understanding is a lie against abraham and isaac; it tries to pump a faithless coward above these people
“foreshadowing of John 3:16 and the replacement / substitute of the ram for the sinful human was a foreshadowing ”
Thats the only shit u have in view because u are a shit head missionary. The sacrifice of abraham was symbolic for his works, faith, deeds trust ect.
“of the ransom sacrifice â both in Leviticus, Isaiah 52-53 and the whole NT.”
Isaaih 53= asham
abraham offering = olah
“I donât read your nutty articles was meant for mr.heathcliff. you have too much cursing, dirty language, long ranting, bad grammar, bad spelling â”
you silly bastard of krist, i dont even need the holy spirit to speak multiple languages, yet a fat missionary shit like you pretends to speak arabic and farsi like he knows his stuff
“you are a waste of time.”
you are an abuse of electronic space with your sexual intercourse of your european bastard god who hangs on a cross.
“I can only comment on your stuff if is short and understandable. ”
u have the holy spriti shafting u bastard pig of krist
“Most of your stuff is not even comprehensible.”
most of ur stuff comes from ur ass
Hi Ken how do you deal with the main argument of the rabbi in question? That the NT authors DIDN’T know about said “parallel” and instead haphazardly used the Passover for the atonement of sins instead. Don’t you find that odd? I mean if Yom Kippur is the true parallel why is absent from the NT? As QB said it seems God choose to have his son crucified on the wrong day.
i wonder if he will try to bring up a solution which has already been refuted by others.
For example, greg g from disqus
I had the same thing with the debate over whether Jesus was crucified before the Passover or after. He was on about there being two meals. I showed that the Diaspora had two meals because they couldn’t be certain which day was the new moon as determined in Jerusalem. Then he said it was an earlier version of it. I showed that one ended about a thousand years earlier. He said Jesus was trying to re-institute the old one. I pointed out that John specifically said it was before the time of Passover and each of the Synoptics said it was the time of the Passover before the crucifixion. He then decided to stop responding to me
It is not absent – all the language of ransom, sacrifice, offering, death, etc. harkens back to:
Genesis 22
Exodus 12
Leviticus chapters 1-7 and 16-17
Isaiah 52-53
If you read my article, (and other ones that relate to it), I demonstrate that both aspects of the 2 goats (one slaughtered and one released that carried sins away) are both illustrated in Isaiah 52:13-53:12 – death and slaughter / blood sacrifice and bearing / carrying our sins away.
Dummy, why did your god choose the wrong day to have his son, which was himself, crucified? If there was a “parallel” between your mangod’s sacrifice (btw, we are still waiting to find out what exactly was sacrificed) and Yom Kippur, then why was he crucified on Passover, a completely different day?
@Ken Temple
Hi Ken thanks for the reply. I think you’ve misunderstood the point that I and the rabbi were making. That the NT authors DIDNâT know about said âparallelâ and instead haphazardly used the Passover for the atonement of sins instead. If Yom Kippur is the true parallel then why is it absent from the NT? the language of ransom, sacrifice, offering, death, in relation to the passover can be found in the NT but not Yom Kippur. I’ll just ask you directly, can you provide just one explicit reference of Yom Kippur from the NT?
@Ken Temple
Hi Ken thanks for answering my past questions. Heres a new one to entertain you’re time. when the sacrificial atonement occurred, did the divine nature of Jesus(a.s) suffer?
yes or no? please reply when you have the time.
Jesus as one unified Person died and suffered. The Divine Nature is not affected by death or physical issues. That is whey Jesus rose from the dead and proved His death was an effective atonement and also proved He is God by nature – the God-man. John 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8. You keep asking questions which divide the 2 natures. I understand why from an Islamic viewpoint, that you want to keep driving that point home. That is why the early church in 431 AD at the council of Ephesus decided that Nestorianism (dividing the 2 natures too much of an emphasis into 2 persons) was wrong and a heresy.
@Ken Temple
Thank you for the reply.
“The Divine Nature is not affected by death or physical issues.”
So the divine nature did not suffer, got it.
“You keep asking questions which divide the 2 natures.”
I’m just trying to understand the intricacies of the hypostatic union as well as you’re specific views on the mater. When Christians say jesus is God and that he suffered and died for our sins it only makes sense to ask if God(or the divine nature) can suffer and die.
“Jesus as one unified Person died and suffered. The Divine Nature is not affected by death or physical issues.”
are you saying then that within the pagan “unity” only a divine natureless PERSON was suffering ?
x (person)= y (human being) and z (divine being)
you are saying that z is not affected by death. what do you have left? you have xy left. how was xy left. you have to force a “unity” even though you have made x DIVINE natureless WHEN x is suffering .
Kennywise’s trinity nonsense just keeps destroying itself. đ
temple is such a pagan retard that he doesn’t see that he completely makes jesus fully human without even realizing it. like dale tuggy says, they are told to repeat doctrinal statements without analyzing them. once they analyse them, they start to commit heresies like william lane craig does.
Maybe Kennywise also thinks the best analogy for the trinity is Cerberus. đ€Ł
ken temple is a coward. he is allowed to copy and paste his missionary crap on this blog, but when i recently tried to post link against jesus’ “resurrection,” he still has not RELEASED the post. coward krister .
He is a hypocritical piece of crap. It exposes his deceitful nature and shows that his self-righteousness is self-defeating.
“That is whey Jesus rose from the dead and proved His death was an effective atonement and also proved He is God by nature â the God-man.”
your god doing a stupid stage play has not answered the problem of atonement.
u r saying that yhwh did an act and then RESET IT LOL LOL LOL
Jesus Al Masih fulfills ALL the OT sacrifices.
Genesis 22 – blessing to all nations, Abraham rejoiced to see My day, John 3:16
Exodus 12 – Passover – John the baptist – behold, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. John 1:29
Leviticus 1-7; 16-17 – Yom Kippur
I Kings – Solomon’s temple sacrifices
Isaiah 52 – 53 – both aspects of 1. substitutionary slaughter and 2. carrying or bearing our sins away (harkens back to the 2 goats of the day of atonement / Yom Kippur
LOL!! Passover had nothing to do with the atonement of sins, you idiot! Therefore, it was the wrong day for your mangod to be sacrificed. It is not a surprise that only the Gospel of John quotes John the Baptist referring to Exodus 12 and the Passover sacrifice. The idiot author did not know that the Passover sacrifice did not “take away sins”.
As for the 2 goats of YOM KIPPUR, again, it was on the wrong day. You just proved it again! LOL!! It was supposed to Yom Kippur, not Passover. Your god severely miscalculated on when to get crucified.
LOL – yes it does. The blood had to be applied to protect from the wrath of God / judgment – only a sacrifice and application and believe in the blood sacrifice / atonement protects you from the wrath / justice of God.
Also, even the Qur’an demonstrates substitutionary atonement / ransom of Genesis 22 :
Surah 37:107
“We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice.”
Proof is in Mark 10:45 / Matthew 20:28 and the whole NT.
“LOL â yes it does. The blood had to be applied to protect from the wrath of God / judgment â only a sacrifice and application and believe in the blood sacrifice / atonement protects you from the wrath / justice of God.”
LOL – no, it doesn’t, you idiot. You exhibit the same ignorance as the idiot who wrote the Gospel of John. The blood was not meant for ATONEMENT OF SINS, dummy. The words “atonement” or “sins” do not appear even once in Exodus 12. Give it up, moron. No one is falling for your crosstian propaganda.
“Also, even the Qurâan demonstrates substitutionary atonement / ransom of Genesis 22 :
Surah 37:107
âWe have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice.â
Proof is in Mark 10:45 / Matthew 20:28 and the whole NT.”
LOL – a pathetic attempt at deflection. I have already schooled you on this numerous. No need to beat a dead horse.
“LOL â yes it does. The blood had to be applied to protect from the wrath of God / judgment â only a sacrifice and application and believe in the blood sacrifice / atonement protects you from the wrath / justice of God.”
clearly shows that this pagan think that blood has some kind of magic in it.
The blood was applied because it was symbolic for the works, deeds, rituals of the hebrews in which yhwh was pleased. It had nothing to do with your faithless coward “messiah”
@Ken Temple
“Jesus Al Masih fulfills ALL the OT sacrifices.”
Hi Ken quick question. If I were to reject this statement on the basis that God hates human sacrifice how would you respond?
just ask him where does even one animal sacrifice in the ot abrogate / fulfill “moral/ceremonial ” laws in ot.
Which verse is that?
God the eternal Son, in complete fellowship eternally with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, One God in three persons; voluntarily became human, so if He decided to do this (the incarnation and the atonement and the resurrection) for our salvation, out of love, then it is not sinful “human sacrifice” in the way you are thinking of it. God (the Son) in unity with the Father and the Holy Spirit, can become incarnate if He wants to and be the atonement if He wants to.
This is the proof (as if we needed more) that this guy is completely and utterly brainwashed. There is no reasoning with such a pathetic zombie.
So “God” decides that human sacrifices are an abomination, but meanwhile, his plan all along was to act as a human sacrifice to appease himself so he could forgive mankind’s sins. Wow. Just wow.
@ Ken
So He declares He hates human sacrifice and it’s an abomination and then…proceeds to do it Himself? Okay….
thou SHALT kill your god yhwh for forgiveness .
quote:
In short and in essence, fundamental Christian soteriology, without ifs and buts, teaches that God told people in no ambiguous terms that killing is so horrible that even His grace is defeated by it but this same prohibited deed– a humiliating death by murder, an act that He outlawed as sinful –that overpowers His grace is what He chose and planned for Himself and it is the only way to earn His grace and earn oneself a ticket to eternal bliss. A sinful process is a salvific process or truer to the first paragraph, in mortal sin is salvific promise! Would one be at risk of anathema if one came up with an eleventh commandment to mirror the salvific dogma of Christianity? But the Christian gospel is the gospel of love and that gospel of love is the gospel of the cross without which all is lost. So in fact what might be an eleventh commandment may turn out to be the first and most important commandment of all: Thou shall kill your God that He may forgive you all your sins.
Let us try to unravel this mystery together or have you had enough headache for a lifetime just having to read this?
So in a match between the Sixth Commandment and the Christian Cross, which would emerge victorious?
My money is with the Sixth Commandment and I would even stake my life on it. As Proncell Johnson writes, ” God also told us via the Ten Commandments, “:thou shalt not kill.” He would not contradict His own commandments! This is what we would expect of pagan gods, but not of the God of love!”
Ken Temple: I have lost 47 pounds in the last few months.
Along with brain cells?
https://i.imgur.com/NoFa7GL.jpg
đ€Łđ€Łđ€Ł
I have lost 47 pounds in the last few months. That was an old picture and I was also very tired at the time. But your photoshop and mockery and lying is bad.
@ Ken
Good job on the weight loss. May God make it easy for you and may you be grateful for His favors that He alone bestowed upon you with no help or partners.
“Along with brain cells?”
LOL
That is a clever one-liner. smart and snarky. David Wood type humor . . .
Praise God that the NT and sound doctrine and the Holy Spirit and God’s providence and sovereignty and love and wisdom give us health and brains and minds that help us true believers with the truth of the revelation of the NT over what you are trying to figure out with your puny minds. Islam is a false religion.
LOL, but you crosstians haven’t been able to figure out the contradictions in your pagan religion. No wonder you and Holmes are struggling to explain the fatal flaws in Christianity! đ
you are welcome to and free to your opinion. But the historical facts are on the NT and Christianity side of 600 years of establishment before Islam ever came around. Muhammad’s claims are just one man’s subjective claims in the desert and his ability and power to create an aggressive / war-like / unjust religion that does not fit with the world today. You can call it “pagan” all you want, but the Qur’an unwittingly and ignorantly affirmed the previous revelations as sent down from God. Later . . . oops . . . .
Kennywise the sewer clown, your idiotic opinions don’t matter. You have been refuted on all of your claims against the true religion of Islam. Your paganism and hatred of pure monotheism have corrupted your mind. You follow the opinions of the false apostle Paul, a man who never met Jesus. So, Paul’s claims were subjective. Paul was a heretic flown, just like you. And you both will rot in hell for your heresy.
And no, idiot, the Quran does not “affirm” your pathetic scripture. You’ve been schooled on this as well.
Besides, your NT unwittingly and ignorantly contradicts the Tanakh e.g., Ezekiel, the Passover sacrifice, human sacrifice, etc. Oops…
You have never refuted anything. The NT and history proves you are wrong; and they rule over you, though you don’t see the truth. Jesus is Lord and commands you to repent of your false religion.
Sure, sure Kennywise. Keep telling yourself that like the braindead broken record that you are. Us reasonable people are content to live in the real world. Your NT is a poorly written, poorly thought-out collection of garbage written by ignorant people. Your pagan god has no power over me. The True God, the God of Jesus, commands you to repent of false, pagan religion.
sure sure Faizywise, keep telling yourself that – you are dead in your sins, so you cannot get it until causes you to wake up from your soul that is now in bondage to sin. You will is in bondage and you cannot even choose the right way.
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.
Ephesians 2:1-3
Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your fatherâs desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. ”
John 8:43-44
Faizywise – you are dead in your sins, so you cannot get it until God causes you to wake up from your soul that is now in bondage to sin. You will is in bondage and you cannot even choose the right way.
Jesus says to Faizywise:
John 8:34
“Truly Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.”
By the way, Kennywise, the idiotic NT authors also unwittingly and ignorantly quoted from apocryphal and non-canonical books like the Book of Enoch. These guys were clueless!
In general, three passages from the New Testament are widely regarded by scholars as pointing to the angels-interpretation because of their dependency on the story from 1 Enoch, these being 1 Peter 3:19-20, 2 Peter 2:4, and Jude 6-7.[27]Â Here are the passages:
1 Peter 3:19-20
âAfter being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spiritsâto those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.â
2 Peter 2:4
âFor if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;â
Jude 6-7
âAnd the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwellingâthese he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.â
To most modern Christians, the attempt to link these passages to the angels-interpretation might seem unwarranted, but the fact is that even though these passages do not explicitly refer to angel-human intercourse (which was mentioned in 1 Enoch), they do refer to the imprisonment of angels for some sins they had committed. Indeed, 1 Peter 3 links their sin to the time of Noah (peace be upon him), which lines up well with the Genesis account, and Jude 6-7 likens the sins of the angels to âsexual immorality and perversionâ, like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.[28]Â According to 1 Enoch, 13:1-2, Enoch warned the chief angel Azazel:
ââŠthou shalt have no peace: a severe sentence has gone forth against thee to put thee in bonds: And thou shalt not have toleration nor request granted to theeâŠâ
Taken together, there is little doubt that the New Testament writers were familiar with the Enoch-story and the imprisonment of the âWatchersâ for the sin of cohabitating with human women and teaching mankind all manner of evil deeds. Moreover, they referred to this story in their writings. Doedens notes that since the story from 1 Enoch was so well-known at the time:
ââŠif Jude would not have wanted to allude to this sin of the angels as reported in this tradition, he should have explicitly emphasised this.â[29]
He notes the same for 2 Peter 2:4â7 as well.[30]
           For 1 Peter 3:18-20, the more âdifficultâ of the three verses to interpret in Doedensâ view, the word âspiritsâ is the key. He explains that:
â[i]n the New Testament the plural ÏΜΔÏΌαÏα, âspiritsâ, is usually accompanied by a qualifier which leaves no question as to whom the word refers. In most occurrences, the reference is to non-human beings. The rare use of the word without further qualification refers in most cases to supernatural (malevolent) beings.â[31]
           Perry singles out Jude specifically as a clear reference to 1 Enoch. He makes the following observation:
â[a]lthough filled with references to the Hebrew Bible and Jewish traditions, Jude gives prominence to 1 Enoch by quoting it directly. Enoch continued to be quoted authoritatively by Christians until it was rejected by opponents to millennialism.â[32]
So, contrary to modern Christian interpretations, all three verses consistently point to the angels-interpretation of Genesis 6.
           Scholars have also noted parallels between the Gospel of Matthew and 1 Enoch.[33] For example, we can compare Matthew 22:13 with 1 Enoch 10:4:
Matthew 22:13
âThen the king told the attendants, âTie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.ââ
1 Enoch 10:4
âAnd again the Lord said to Raphael: âBind Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an openingâŠâ
Again, to modern Christians, this âparallelâ would not necessarily imply that Matthew was using 1 Enoch as a source or that he considered it to be a reliable book. But, as with the passages like Jude 6-7, when we consider that the Enoch-story was very well-known to Jews at the time, they would have immediately recognized the allusion to 1 Enoch 10:4 and the binding of Azazel (the leader of the Watchers). Other such parallels include Matthewâs use of the âSon of Manâ concept, which scholars have noted is similar to the way the Book of Parables interprets Daniel 7,[34]Â and Matthew 24:36-44, which refers to âthe days of Noahâ and Godâs imminent judgement.[35]Â Â Â
           But there is one more passage (mentioned with variations in the Synoptic gospels) which may have been based on the Enoch-story, and one that has not received as much attention. Readers will remember that the Christian apologist Ken Templeâs main argument against the angels-interpretation was that the gospels indicate that there will be no marriage in heaven (as Mark 12:25, Matthew 22:30, and Luke 20:34-36). However, in the previous article, we discussed a few reasons why this appeal does not refute the claim that the âsons of Godâ in Genesis 6 were angels, foremost among them being that Genesis 6 was referring to marriage and sexual intercourse on earth, and not in heaven. Moreover, the gospels do not state that it will be impossible to get married, only that marriage will not occur. Also, in the Bible, angels were able to act like humans while on earth (e.g., they ate food).
           Doedens also refutes the appeal to the gospels on these grounds. He states:
â[t]he answer implies that angels do not marry but does not state that angels cannot marry. It neither implies that fallen angels never could have had sexual relationships. The Old Testament recounts that angels in earthly appearance are âdressed as men, eat, drink, walk and are subject to being molested (Gen.18:1,2,8; 19:1,5)â, as Van Gemeren formulates. There is, then, no reason to exclude before-hand the possibility of sexual relationships entered into by angels.â[36]
           But there may be another reason why the appeal to the gospels doesnât work. In fact, it may even backfire. As the passages state, Jesus (peace be upon him) claimed that there is no marriage in heaven. Does that mean that angels could not descend to earth and marry humans? Was Jesusâ alleged claim even unique? As it turns out, it was not. The same idea was already known to Jews and was circulating centuries before Jesus (peace be upon him) was even born. Ironically, it has come to us from one major pre-Christian source, and that is none other than 1 Enoch! In chapter 15 of the âBook of the Watchersâ, it states (emphasis ours):
âAnd though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those also do who die and perish. Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. But you were formerly spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling.â[37]
We can see a clear parallel between the alleged saying of Jesus (peace be upon him) in the gospels with 1 Enoch. Professor Lee McDonald (Acadia Divinity College) states:
â[t]he similarity here is in the thought that angels do not marry and neither do those who go from this life to the next.â[38]
So what Jesus (allegedly) said was nothing new or unique. It was not a new teaching, but it was certainly not mentioned anywhere in the Tanakh. In fact, the earliest extant source for this teaching, which predates Jesusâ birth by around 200 years, is the same source that also narrated the story of angels having sexual intercourse with humans on earth! Thus, to the author of 1 Enoch, having no wives in the spiritual realm did not mean that the spirits could not descend to earth and take wives and have children. Readers should also recall that Enochic literature was very important to the Essenes, whereas the denial of the resurrection was the belief of their rivals, the Sadducees. In Mark, Matthew, and Luke, Jesusâ response was directed at none other than the Sadducees. This is further evidence to refute the Christian use of Mark 12:25, Matthew 22:30, and Luke 20:34-36 to deny the angels-interpretation for Genesis 6.
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/11/15/1-enoch-and-the-sons-of-god/
Kennywise, I’m still waiting for you to explain why you don’t obey your mangod. Is it because you don’t actually have the holy spirit? You’re full of something else? đ€Ł
Sure, sure fat Kennywise, Keep repeating your pagan nonsense. It demonstrates that you are a slave of stupidity.
“Jesus says to Faizywise:
John 8:34
âTruly Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.â”
LOL, I think this was meant for you, the sinner clown who will not obey his mangod and “turn the other cheek”. LOL!!
ezekiel refutes jesus. yhwh refutes jesus. Ezekiel and yhwh say that one can master over sin and repentance brings life.
how can u bloody be “slave to sin” when yhwh gave a book KNOWING FULL WELL he is not giving to angels or sinless ppl?
the “slave to sin” bs is what crosstians say about their own sinless children. u teach ur kids that they r slave to sin.
What has ur pagan religion brought out then to tell human to hate himself?
this guy is not allowing the links to go through
https://i.imgur.com/NoFa7GL.jpg
this guy in the picture (fully penny wise and fully human) is not allowing the link to go through. you are doing the same shit that the writers of acts did, allow the judaizers FEW lines….in my case , u r not even allowing ONE link to go through.
fat pig of jesus wrote:
Jesus Al Masih fulfills ALL the OT sacrifices.
/////
response: assumes that the sacrifices were NECESSARY. assumes that the SHEDDING of blood is the ONLY way. here are your TEACHERS telling u that you are selling shit dressed up as a body on a cross:
////
The Hebrew Bible never states that sacrifices are unconditionally necessary. That’s the first thing to get out of the way. No where does the Hebrew Bible say that one who is unable to give sacrifices is either violating God’s instruction or irredeemable. Sacrifices are an external act of worship which are conditionally required, and those conditions (namely a Temple) do not currently exist.
When King David was unable to bring offerings, he did not despair. He did not bemoan that he was going against God’s will and instruction. He did not conclude that he was unable to properly worship God. No, this is what David writes (Ps. 51:17-19):
O Lord, open my lips, and let my mouth declare Your praise. You do not want me to bring sacrifices; You do not desire burnt offerings; True sacrifice to God is a contrite spirit; God, You will not despise a contrite and crushed heart.
So we, as Jews unable to bring offerings to a Temple, know that it’s okay. God does not want us to bring physical sacrifices when doing so is impossible. God demands that we offer what we are able to offer. So we offer to God ourselves; our repentant hearts. This is enough, just as it was for King David. All the while we hope for a day when Jerusalem is restored and we actually will be able to worship God with physical sacrifices. Just as David did, in the lines immediately following the aforementioned verses (Ps. 51:20-21):
May it please You to make Zion prosper; rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. Then You will want sacrifices offered in righteousness, burnt and whole offerings; then bulls will be offered on Your altar.
We also know that during the time that the Temple stood, there were people who were unable to bring sacrifices to Jerusalem. These people may have thought themselves lost and unable to worship God in an acceptable manner. To these people, Hosea declares (Hos. 14:3/2):
Take words with you And return to the Lord. Say to Him: Forgive all guilt And accept what is good; And we will pay with the bulls our lips.
When one goes to give a sacrifice, one gives what he is able. A wealthy man may bring a bull, a poor man only grain. When one is unable to physically bring anything at all, in place of bulls one offers the prayers of his lips. This is enough, and God will accept it. This is what we do now, we bring our prayers to God just as those in the past did.
Living without a Temple actually isn’t even a new thing. After all, Solomon’s Temple was destroyed long ago and there were Jews who had to live without a Temple until the building of the Second Temple. These Jews knew what to do, for Solomon provides instruction for living without a Temple. At the dedication of the First Temple, Solomon speaks before the people, saying (1 Kings 8:46-50):
When they sin against Youâfor there is no man who does not sinâand You are angry with them and deliver them to the enemy, and their captors carry them off to an enemy land, near or far; and then they take it to heart in the land to which they have been carried off, and they repent and make supplication to You in the land of their captors, saying: âWe have sinned, we have acted perversely, we have acted wickedly,â and they turn back to You with all their heart and soul, in the land of the enemies who have carried them off, and they pray to You in the direction of their land which You gave to their fathers, of the city which You have chosen, and of the House which I have built to Your nameâ oh, give heed in Your heavenly abode to their prayer and supplication, uphold their cause, and pardon Your people who have sinned against You for all the transgressions that they have committed against You.
So that’s just what the Jewish people did. When they were in Babylon, they turned toward Jerusalem and prayed. The Jews in Babylonian Exile didn’t conclude that some guy who happened to die during the time of the First Temple must’ve been a final sacrifice. No, they held to the Jewish faith, prayed facing Jerusalem, and awaited a time of restoration. If they had not done so, if they had instead abandoned the Jewish faith, then there would never have been a Second Temple and there would never have been a Jesus. So surely a Christian must assert that the Jews of the Babylonian Exile were doing nothing wrong in offering their prayers as they face Jerusalem, and we Jews in the present are only doing what those Jews of the past did.
What Jews do today is offer prayer to God at any time a sacrifice might otherwise be required. This is exactly what Jews of the past did. If one reads through the Hebrew Bible, I think the Jewish position is pretty evidently supported. The Hebrew Bible tells all who live without a Temple that prayer and doing what is good will always be acceptable before God. The Hebrew Bible never seems to support the notion that sacrifices are immutably necessary or that there will be a final, human sacrifice to end all sacrifices.
Sometimes propitiation is in view. Sometimes expiation.
Passover is propitiation of sin because it is not a response to a specific act of sin which needs to be expiated.
Romans 3:25
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
1 John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 4:10
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Muslims seem to have blinkers on and see only expiation but not propitiation of sin and limit atonement to expiation of sin.
Lol, another Christian crashes and burns! Iggy/Erasmus/Holmes, it is quite noticeable that you quoted your NT for this pathetic apologetic explanation and brought nothing from the Tanakh.
The fact of the matte is that the Passover sacrifice had NOTHING to do with sin. Your pathetic wordplay (proposition vs expiration) is just more mental gymnastics.
Correction: Propitiation vs expiation.
This is what happens when you type on your cellphone.
The tabernacle and the priesthood, which were specifically revealed to make atonement for the people, were not yet instituted at the time of the passover.
This is another reason why the word atonement is not used in connection with the passover.
The one is a divine means, i.e. killing the firstborn. The other is purely a human means, killing the animal, of making atonement.
Oh for the love of God…you guys are truly shameless!
Even if the tabernacle and priesthood were not yet instituted, what about when they were? Where does the Bible after Exodus clarify that the Passover sacrifice was really meant for atonement? Go ahead. Give one verse from the Tanakh which clarifies this.
The passover contained an element of ransom in addition to propitiation. To deliver the people by a ransom, the lives of the firstborn, from slavery in Egypt and to turn away the wrath of the angel of the Lord. It was a commemoration of a unique redemptive event. So it did point to Christ. It was fitting to refer to this in the gospel.
“The passover contained an element of ransom in addition to propitiation.”
it was burnt ,eaten and digested. was the burial of poop symbolic for the burial of ur god-man?
ransom
/Ërans(É)m/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a sum of money demanded or paid for the release of a captive
/////
the jews weren’t held captive, they were doing deeds . the blood symbolized their deeds and their disgust for lamb gods.
killing the egyptian gods (lambs)
propitiation
/prÉËpÉȘÊÉȘËeÉȘÊ(É)n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: propitiation; plural noun: propitiations
the action of propitiating or appeasing a god, spirit, or person.
the deeds, acts and obedience. works/rituals.
13And the blood will be for you for a sign upon the houses where you will be, and I will see the blood and skip over you, and there will be no plague to destroy [you] when I smite the [people of the] land of Egypt.
“To deliver the people by a ransom, the lives of the firstborn, from slavery in Egypt and to turn away the wrath of the angel of the Lord”
no ransom. no propiation in crosstian sense. nothing to do with sins.
“To deliver the people by a ransom, the lives of the firstborn, from slavery in Egypt and to turn away the wrath of the angel of the Lord.”
complete and utter nonsense. here is ken temple
https://i.imgur.com/NoFa7GL.jpg
your choice of “ransom” “wrath” is very crosstian. the angel looks at the blood and it reminds him of the works/deeds/rituals/obedience/faith…
Sorry Moses does not agree with you man. You miserable loser.
Exodus 15:16
Fear and dread shall fall upon them; by the greatness of thine arm they shall be as still as a stone; till thy people pass over, O LORD, till the people pass over, which thou hast purchased.
1Then Moses and the children of Israel sang this song to the Lord, and they spoke, saying, I will sing to the Lord, for very exalted is He; a horse and its rider He cast into the sea.
2The Eternal’s strength and His vengeance were my salvation; this is my God, and I will make Him a habitation, the God of my father, and I will ascribe to Him exaltation.
6Your right hand, O Lord, is most powerful; Your right hand, O Lord, crushes the foe.
8And with the breath of Your nostrils the waters were heaped up; the running water stood erect like a wall; the depths congealed in the heart of the sea.
9[Because] the enemy said, I will pursue, I will overtake, I will share the booty; my desire will be filled from them; I will draw my sword, my hand will impoverish them.
10You blew with Your wind, the sea covered them; they sank like lead in the powerful waters.
11Who is like You among the powerful, O Lord? Who is like You, powerful in the holy place? Too awesome for praises, performing wonders!
16May dread and fright fall upon them; with the arm of Your greatness may they become as still as a stone, until Your people cross over, O Lord, until this nation that You have acquired crosses over.
https://i.imgur.com/NoFa7GL.jpg
26And He said, If you hearken to the voice of the Lord, your God, and you do what is proper in His eyes, and you listen closely to His commandments and observe all His statutes, all the sicknesses that I have visited upon Egypt I will not visit upon you, for I, the Lord, heal you
///////////////////
u r the loser.
đ€Łđ€Łđ€Ł Iggy the miserable loser just can’t admit that his religion is finished.
Idiot, where does it say in Exodus 15:16 anything about sin and atonement? Oh where, oh where has the sin and atonement gone? đ§
So I ask again. Bring just one verse where Passover is associated with sin and atonement, you pathetic pagan. Why are you still clinging to your idol?
You are just showing your wilful ignorance by putting the cart before the horse.
First the covenant relation has to be created and then a means instituted for it to be restored in the case of sin.
Thus first comes the passover and then a sacrifice to make atonement given by the provisions of the tabernacle and priesthood.
You are just making a fool of yourself as usual.
đ€Ł Oh man, this guy with his laughable excuses! It kills me!
So, am I correct to assume that you cannot answer my question and that there in NOTHING in the Tanakh that links the Passover sacrifice to atonement for sins?
https://mythodoxy.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/sacrifice.jpg?w=548&h=376
“his blood is on us and on our children!”
do not fear crosstianities pagan blood god!
Exodus 13:15
And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I REDEEM.
Unleavened bread shall be eaten for seven days; no leavened bread shall be seen in your possession, and no leaven shall be seen among you in all your territory. 8 You shall tell your child on that day, âIt is because of what the Lord did for me when I came out of Egypt.â 9 It shall serve for you as a sign on your hand and as a reminder on your forehead, so that the teaching of the Lord may be on your lips; for with a strong hand the Lord brought you out of Egypt. 10 You shall keep this ordinance at its proper time from year to year.
11 âWhen the Lord has brought you into the land of the Canaanites, as he swore to you and your ancestors, and has given it to you, 12 you shall set apart to the Lord all that first opens the womb. All the firstborn of your livestock that are males shall be the Lordâs. 13 But every firstborn donkey you shall redeem with a sheep; if you do not redeem it, you must break its neck. Every firstborn male among your children you shall redeem. 14 When in the future your child asks you, âWhat does this mean?â you shall answer, âBy strength of hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery. 15 When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from human firstborn to the firstborn of animals. Therefore I sacrifice to the Lord every male that first opens the womb, but every firstborn of my sons I redeem.â 16 It shall serve as a sign on your hand and as an emblem[a] on your forehead that by strength of hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt.â
so is this symbolic for your pagan god? was ur pagan jesus sacrificed for the first born?
“What does this mean?â you shall answer, âBy strength of hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery. 15 When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from human firstborn to the firstborn of animals.”
this is a god who took out a grudge on first born and the jews are meant to remember this through works/rituals/acts/deeds.
this has nothing to do with jewish sin, but everything to do with pharoahs defiance and how god through the works of the jews , rescued them.
the key here is that without WORKS god will not do the work for u.
đ€Ł Still nothing there about sins and atonement, dummy. You are just showing your willful ignorance and deceit, like your brother in lies Kennywise.
Squawking the same words over and over again like a parrot. What Muslims do when they have no argument.
Muslim:
Killing firstborn is bad. Killing Jews and other infidels en masse is good.
“Squawking the same words over and over again like a parrot. What Muslims do when they have no argument.”
LOL, I think you confused me with you fellow pagan zombie, Kennywise.
You have no argument, dummy. I asked you a question and you cannot answer. So what do you do?
“Muslim:
Killing firstborn is bad. Killing Jews and other infidels en masse is good.”
LOL!! Yep, crosstians deflect when they are cornered!
Before we get distracted by your pathetic attempt to deflect, I ask again:
Where does the Tanakh say that the Passover sacrifice was for the atonement of sins? Can you give me just ONE VERSE?
Now, let’s discuss your pathetic deflection. Yeah, killing innocent children is wrong and evil. Your god had a serious problem with ordering the murders of infants and children. He also had a problem with ordering the killing of non-Jews (infidels) en masse. I think you confused the commands of your god with Islam.
You see, dummy, Islam does not command “killing Jews and other infidels en masse”. It certainly does not command killing children. That is all from your god. We don’t follow that made-up god.
Holmes: Killing Jews and other infidels en masse is good…
Oh please. Historically, Christendom has been the leading killer of Jews. There’s a reason why the Holocaust took place in Europe rather than Muslim lands.
What Jesus was really âgetting atâ is clearly perceived by the shrewd Wright, butâso it is statedâwas not perceived by his own contemporaries. The claim that Jesusâ real purposes were painfully misunderstood is, however, an old, hackneyed apologetic deviceâalready used in the Gospelsâwhose untenable nature can be easily proved. On the one hand, establishing a yawning chasm between Jesus and his disciples is, however repeated in scholarship, utterly counter-intuitive. It was Jesus who chose his group, who held them as his disciples throughout his public life, and who sent them to preach in his name, so he must have checked that they were not too obtuse; after all, Jesusâ delegation of power and authority to the disciples is often seen in Mark,39 and the notion that âHe who receives you receives meâ is ascribed to him in the Gospels.40 On the other hand, Jesusâ message was not complex enough as to be misunderstood by other people, even less by those who listened at him every day and had the opportunity to grasp the point.41
Therefore
what the disciples wanted and expected must have agreed with Jesusâ own goals and expectations, at least during his lifetime. If the disciples waited for an integral redemption of Israel according to the Davidic, traditional view of kingshipâsuch as can be inferred from passages like Luke 24:21 and Acts 1:6â, Jesus must have expected it too. The ceaseless attempts to dissociate Jesus from the expectations generated by his claims are historically and psychologically implausible, and even verge on the nonsensical.
All this ignites suspicion, especially so because Wrightâs and many othersâ claim that Jesus redefined kingship is inextricably interwoven with the (explicit or implicit) use of a rhetorical trope of subversionâ Jesusâ depiction of an ideal ruler as a servant would entail a deeply countercultural moveâwhose ideological and apologetic character has been compellingly exposed.42 Of course, that something has an apologetic value does not mean that it is false, so we cannot rule out in advance the possibility that he somehow carried out such a redefinition. But what are the actual arguments supporting that contention?
As far as I can see, a key role in this kind of reasoning is played by the interpretation of a few Gospel passages. Typical âproof textsâ are Mark 9:33â37 (and parallels), where disciples are reprimanded by Jesus for arguing about âwho (was) the greatest,â and are instructed that whoever wishes to be the first must be last of all (ÏÎŹÎœÏÏÎœ áŒÏÏαÏÎżÏ) and servant of all (ÏÎŹÎœÏÏÎœ ÎŽÎčÎŹÎșÎżÎœÎżÏ). The most adduced pericope is, however, Mark 10:35â45 and parallels (Matthew 20:20â28 // Luke 22:24â27), where an ostensibly sharp disjunction is drawn between political authority structures and Jesusâ community. In this text, civil hierarchies function as a negative foil to the ideals recommended for the Twelve: the rulers of the Gentiles âexercise lordship overâ (ÎșαÏαÎșÏ ÏÎčΔÏÎżÏ ÏÎčÎœ) or âhave power overâ (ÎșαÏÎ”ÎŸÎżÏ ÏÎčÎŹÎ¶ÎżÏ ÏÎčÎœ) (Mark 10:42) their subjects, âbut it is not to be so among youâ (ÎżáœÏ ÎżáœÏÏÏ ÎŽÎ áŒÏÏÎčÎœ áŒÎœ áœÎŒáżÎœ) (Mark 10:43).
Instead, greatness and pre-eminence are intimately linked to the function of servant (ÎŽÎčÎŹÎșÎżÎœÎżÏ) or slave (ΎοῊλοÏ), echoing the self-offering service of the Son of Man (Mark 10:45). As I have already remarked, according to many scholars, the depiction of an ideal ruler as a servant of his subjects which is carried out in these passages would entail a subversive, countercultural move. This is, however, a rather dubious claim. There are at least two aspects, closely intertwined, that are usually overlooked by those advancing such
a claim. The first one is that the idea of a ruler as a servant was wellknown both in the Jewish tradition and the Greco-Roman culture. The second one is the possible (rather probable) rhetorical dimension of the statements put forward in support of the alleged redefinition. Below I am sequentially tackling these two aspects
**********************
a claim. The first one is that the idea of a ruler as a servant was wellknown both in the Jewish tradition and the Greco-Roman culture. The second one is the possible (rather probable) rhetorical dimension of the statements put forward in support of the alleged redefinition. Below I am sequentially tackling these two aspects
*********************
the ruler As A servAnt In JewIsh And greCo-romAn trAdItIons Although Politics in the ancient world was usually the field of rulers exercising a harsh power over their subjects, obtaining ascendancy or command over others could also involve the use of more sophisticated devices and ideologies. As Moshe Weinfeld argued several decades ago, the concept of the king as servant of the people, the roots of which could be glimpsed in the Ancient Near East, is expressed in the Hebrew Bible.43 In 1 Kings 12:7, when the people rose up against King Rehoboam, he was counselled by his elders, who address the king in connection with a lightening of the tax-burden of the kingdom, saying: If you will be a servant (ebed) to those people today and serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be your servants forever.
Although such a humble, servile view of kingship must have seemed awkward and hard to swallow to some scribes,44 that notion makes sense as an essential element of Israelite political understanding, precisely because criticism to kingship as conveyed in the Bible was focused on the dangers of those kings seeing themselves as the masters of a nation of servants and behaving as tyrannical monarchs. The text of 1 Kings 12:7 makes plain that servingâand even the discourse on servingâis a strategic move, the outcome of which brings benefits for the ruler: if the king shows benevolence towards his subjects, they will respond with goodwill and loyalty towards him, precisely because everyone (except, of course, people suffering from masochistic personality disorder) wants to be treated with kindness
The possibility that this notion reached the classical Greek world from the East cannot be ruled out. Be that as it may, a classical expression of the view of the ideal ruler as servant is found in the Greco-Roman world, to the extent that it was virtually a commonplace or topos in the political philosophy of Hellenistic kingship, even if many works of this period are irretrievably lost. The concept was epitomized by the Macedonian philosopher-king Antigonos Gonatas (ca. 320â239 B.C.E.) in his rebuke to his son regarding the oppression of citizens: âDo you not understand, my son, that our kingdom is a noble servitude (áŒÎœÎŽÎżÎŸÎżÎœ ΔጶΜαÎč ÎŽÎżÏ Î»Î”ÎŻÎ±Îœ)?â46 Although most works and fragments of âOn Kingshipâ (ÏΔÏ᜶ ÎČαÏÎčλΔίαÏ) treatises cannot be dated with precision, they are usually put well before the writing of the New Testament
This claim is supported by the fact that Plato portrayed the true ruler as a servant of his subjects.47 And this servanthood could entail the offering of life. Dio Cassius claims the Roman emperor Otho (69 C.E.) said to his supporters during his civil war with Vitellius: Surely it is far better and far more just that one should perish for all than many for one (Ïολáœș ÎłÎŹÏ ÏÎżÏ Îșα᜶ ÎșÏΔáżÏÏÎżÎœ Îșα᜶ ÎŽÎčÎșαÎčÏÏΔÏÏÎœ áŒÏÏÎčÎœ áŒÎœÎ± áœÏáœČÏ ÏÎŹÎœÏÏÎœ áŒą ÏολλοáœșÏ áœÏáœČÏ áŒÎœáœžÏ áŒÏολÎÏΞαÎč), and that I should refuse on account of one man alone to embroil the Roman people in civil war and cause so great a multitude of human beings to perish [âŠ] I shall free myself [scil. I will take my own life], that all people may learn from this that you chose for your emperor one who would not give you for himself, but rather himself for you (ᜠÏÏÎčÏ ÎżáœÏ áœÎŒáŸ¶Ï áœÏáœČÏ áŒÎ±Ï ÏοῊ áŒÎ»Î»â áŒÎ±Ï Ï᜞Μ áœÏáœČÏ áœÎŒáż¶Îœ ÎŽÎÎŽÏÎșΔ).48 Analogies with Mark 10:45 are obvious. Both passages present an important, single figure (the âSon of Man,â the emperor) ready to give (ÎŽÎżáżŠÎœÎ±Îč) his life. Both figures declare his willingness to give it for (áŒÎœÏÎŻ, áœÏÎÏ) other people, somehow inferior. Both passages present an antithetical structure, contrasting such a selfless attitude with the usual behaviour of rulersânot bothering at all about the lives that are lost in order to maintain their own powerâ. Accordingly, both passages present the refusal to sacrifice others as a striking, unexpected move
in the late first century C.E. Plutarch also asserts that Otho answers to his supporters, who ask him to use their souls and bodies for himself: âIf I was worthy to be Roman emperor, I ought to give my life freely for my country (Δጰ ÏáżÏ âÎĄÏÎŒÎ±ÎŻÏÎœ áŒĄÎłÎ”ÎŒÎżÎœÎŻÎ±Ï áŒÎŸÎčÎżÏ ÎłÎÎłÎżÎœÎ±, ÎŽÎ”áż ÎŒÎ” ÏáżÏ áŒÎŒáżÏ ÏÏ ÏáżÏ áœÏáœČÏ ÏáżÏ ÏαÏÏÎŻÎŽÎżÏ áŒÏΔÎčΎΔáżÎœ).â49 And Tacitus portrays Otho saying that he considers exposing brave men to further dangers âtoo great a price (pretium) for my life,â50 and committing suicide in order to prevent the loss of many othersâ life. Other literary sources, earlier than and contemporary with Mark, convey the idea of the self-sacrifice of rulers using ransom language. Euripides depicts Creon, the ruler of Thebes, âready to die to redeem my country (αáœÏáœžÏ ÎŽâ [âŠ] ΞΜáżÏÎșΔÎčÎœ áŒÏÎżÎčÎŒÎżÏ ÏαÏÏÎŻÎŽÎżÏ áŒÎșÎ»Ï ÏÎźÏÎčÎżÎœ),â and he offers himself to save the city, thereby saving also his son Menoeceus.51 The Roman senator Cato is portrayed by the poet Lucan as offering his own life as atonement (piaculum) on behalf of his fellow citizens: he expresses his willingness to become âthe scapegoat for the nationâ; in fact, Cato connects his willingness to die as an imitation of the actions of Decius Mus, the paradigm of devotio, who gave his life to avert the nationâs perils in fourth-century B.C.E. Rome.52 This last example is also particularly illuminating in connection with the language used by Mark 10:45 (ÎżáœÎș ጊλΞΔΜ ÎŽÎčαÎșÎżÎœÎ·ÎžáżÎœÎ±Îč áŒÎ»Î»áœ° ÎŽÎčαÎșÎżÎœáżÏαÎč), as Lucan says elsewhere about Cato that he believed âthat he was born to serve (servare) the whole world and not himself
Another significant example in the Roman world is clearly seen in Senecaâs De beneficiis. Commenting on the virtues of ideal Roman rulers, the philosopher refers to them as men who were glorious, but who passed their lives on a footing equal with others, âhaving justice and unselfishness as their highest authority (pro summo imperio habuerunt iustitiam, abstinentiam), because, instead of sacrificing the state to themselves, they have sacrificed themselves to the state (quia non rem publicam sibi, sed se rei publicae dicauerunt).â That âgood manâ âpreferred to be conquered than to conquer, because in this way he could serve the interest of the state (quoniam ita expediebat rei publicae, uinci quam uincere maluit).â
Furthermore, the combination of rulership and service was also used in the case of the figure of the philosopher; the Cynic tradition in particular conceived a figure who rules, servesâsometimes in a very lowly capacityâand even offers his life as part of his service. But this cluster can also be found in thinkers of other schools. A good number of works written by classical and biblical scholars has made plain that the combination of rulership and service may be set within Greco-Roman traditions.55 After this survey of evidence it ought to be clear that the idea conveyed in Mark 10:42â45 is not at all original, striking or idiosyncratic.56 Of course, there are plenty of instances of rationalization in classical literature of the usual experience in ancient (and modern) world politics, namely, that the many are at the service of a ruler, a king or an emperor.
For instance, in his treatise De clementia Seneca argues that the emperor is to the masses as the mind is to the body. Since the body is entirely at the service of the mind, which holds the state together, it is fitting for many people to die on behalf ofâin order to ransomâa single ruler: âit is not lack of self-worth or of sanity when many thousands face the sword for one individual and when with many deaths they ransom one life of sometimes a feeble old man.â57 A hierarchy akin to that of mind to body existing between the emperor and his subjects means that, just as the body parts serve the mind, the subjects rightly sacrifice themselves on the emperorâs behalf. But the existence of such political ideology does not imply that the discourse of the ruler serving the ruled is absent. Far from it, theâhypothetical or realâwillingness upon the part of rulers to offer their lives on behalf and in place of their subjects was widespread in Greek and Roman literature.
Why should this guy be allowed to spam the thread?
how is this spamming ? it is a scholarly article which exposes christians who say jesus redefined kingship.
“Did Jesus the Galilean Redefine the Concept of Kingship? Apologetic Agendas from Ancient Texts to Modern Scholarship”, Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 35/1 (2018), pp. 51-82.
https://www.academia.edu/36994060/_Did_Jesus_the_Galilean_Redefine_the_Concept_of_Kingship_Apologetic_Agendas_from_Ancient_Texts_to_Modern_Scholarship_Annali_di_Storia_dellEsegesi_35_1_2018_pp._51-82
@ Holmes
Lol all of you spam and we don’t like to limit mr.heathcliff’s creativity.
Allow me then also the liberty. Here is a little extract from Raymond Ibrahim’s book: Sword and Scimitar, Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West:
It relates to the “rightly guided” Caliph Sultan Mohamed who conquered Constantinople:
“In 1451, Murad II died and was succeeded by his nineteen-year-old son by a âslave girl of undetermined but probably Christian origin.â This was Muhammad II (r. 1451-1481),* âthe mortal enemy of the Christians,â to quote a contemporary prelate. On becoming sultan his first order was to have his nineteen brothers, including an infant, strangled, and three concubines pregnant by his brothers decapitated. Like that of his great grandfather Bayezid I, young Muhammadâs life exhibited those seemingly contradictory qualities of piety and depravity. âHis passions were at once furious and inexorable.⊠In the palace, as in the field, a torrent of blood was spilt on the slightest provocationâ and âthe noblest of the [male] captive youth were often dishonored by his unnatural lust.”
Great reading recommended for those who are just used to reading the sugar coated revisionist histories of modern apologists for Islam like Karen Armstrong and John Esposito.
Allow me to post a little extract from a book whose title I can’t remember:
“Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”
“When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.”
“In the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.”
“Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.ââ”
Holmes: Allow me then also the liberty. Here is a little extract from Raymond Ibrahimâs book: Sword and Scimitar, Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West:
There’s a reason why Raymond Ibrahim’s books are not published by academic/university presses.
Who claims Mehmed II is “rightly-guided” lol? That title ONLY applies to the first 5. So let’s leave that here as that is a pretty elementary mistake to have made:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashidun_Caliphate
Next, no Muslim has claimed every amir, sultan or caliph in history was righteous and I can give you dozens of worst examples, they were kings like any other leader at the time. Moving you could have just asked as you’re not saying anything not known. The ancient Turk custom was to kill all pretenders to the throne to avoid a civil war. We don’t base our religion on what others do. Very poor argument.
Why don’t you instead read about how to answer the glaring plotholes in your pagan religion instead?
@ QB
Oohhhh!!!Oooohhhh! Oooohhhh!!! Is the book the Quran or Sahih Bukhari?
LOL, don’t be silly Stew. The Quran and Sunnah is far above the depravity in that book whose name title I can’t remember.
@ QB
Hmmmmm…đ€đ€đ€ Okay, I need a hint is it a pagan religious text?
If I remember correctly, yes, parts of the book did have a pagan ideology.
@ QB
Hmmm…is it the Vedas or Bhagavata, perhaps?
Hmm…no, I don’t think so. Maybe Holmes/Erasmus/Watson/Iggy or Kennywise the sewer clown would know?
@ QB
Don’t be silly they only know about peaceful Jesus(as) and surely he wouldn’t approve of such behavior. Plus they only know about mangods…..oohhhh is it the Iliad or some other Greek mythology!!!???
Well, not THAT pagan, but still pretty close.
While we’re trying to figure out which book contains these evil passages, allow me the liberty of posting an extract from another book: Battle of the Crusades 1097-1444: From Dorylaeum to Varna:
“Richard, however, did not let them [civilians from Acre] go. Instead, on 20 August [1191], he had them beheaded – men, women, and children – 2600 by his own reckoning. English rationalizers excuse the act by claiming that the English king was simply responding to Saladin’s unwillingness to return the fragment of the Holy Cross; and besides these people had not surrendered immediately after being besieged, a violation of the laws of war. Other chroniclers are not swayed: Richard’s actions were heinous, an egregious and cowardly war crime.”
In this way, the presence of the combination of rulership and service in Jesusâ teachings and the New Testament in general could be accounted for. Be that as it may, what all this means is that the so-called redefinition of kingship in Jesusâ preaching or the ideal of the self-sacrificing ruler does not seem to be a genuine redefinition at all in the sense of something unheard of in the first centuryâs cultural and political context: even if the material usually adduced goes back to the historical Jesus, it cannot be reasonably deemed a novelty. More importantly, such alleged redefinition could hardly be considered as a kind of a truly critical, challenging or subversive position. In order to understand this judgment a second aspect which has a bearing on our topic should be seriously taken into account. I refer to the probable rhetorical dimension of some of Jesusâ statements.
3 For the Lord will pass through to strike down the Egyptians; when he sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over that door and will not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to strike you down. 24 You shall observe this rite as a perpetual ordinance for you and your children. 25 When you come to the land that the Lord will give you, as he has promised, you shall keep this observance. 26 And when your children ask you, âWhat do you mean by this observance?â 27 you shall say, âIt is the passover sacrifice to the Lord, for he passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt, when he struck down the Egyptians but spared our houses.ââ And the people bowed down and worshiped.
/////
here the jews are told to remember again and again yhwhs hate for christian idolatry.
quote:
As much as Jesus did not fulfill Passover through his death, he did not fulfill it through proper observance, either. Jesus uses it as an opportunity for self-aggrandizement, to redirect peopleâs attention from God toward Jesus. Rather than teaching his disciples Torah, rather than teaching them about the great deliverance of Israel, Jesus teaches about himself and his upcoming death. According to Luke, it is at the Passover meal that Jesus teaches: âThis is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of meâ (Lk. 22:19). Jesus perverts the day, making it to be about himself. This, of course, shows that Jesus did not fulfill the day as a Passover lamb as in the previous paragraph, because his death did not refer Israel to the exodus. But it also shows that Jesus did not fulfill the day through observance. Instead, he attempted to overwrite the day to make it be about himself rather than God.
one thing to note here is that the idea of “saving”
“savior”
“salvation”
“to save”
in the crosstian sense is completely missing from the above passage.
christianity changed a story about pagan flesh gods (lambs) into a romance .
in the crosstian sense, the deity is appeased by his own actions . sacrificing himself to himself cools him off. he makes a body and then sheds it to appease himself.
in the hebrew sense, the deity is giving set of instructions and painting is just one of them. when the deity sees that his instructions are obeyed, he does not send “the destroyer” into the peoples houses.
so i will ask the question
, âWhat do you mean by this observance?â
it defines the observance for its readers
you shall say, âIt is the passover sacrifice to the Lord, for he passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt, when he struck down the Egyptians but spared our houses.â
why did he spare the houses? because the diety like his children practiced the KILLING of the pagan egyptian gods/deeds/works/rituals
both are “fighting” in a sense and it is not in the crosstian sense.