Actually, it is agreeing with Protestant faith – that we don’t need a priest as in the RC system on earth.
Because Jesus Al Masih (the Messiah) was the final sacrifice, atoned for sin, was a propitiation (satisfied God’s justice and wrath against sin) and high priest and rose from the dead and ever lives at the right hand of the Father praying for us believers.
Your silly religion misappropriated the Passover sacrifice and mistakenly applied it to Jesus (pbuh). That is enough to show that Christianity is a false religion. Jesus was not the “ultimate” Paschal lamb.
Yes, the Christian god wanted literal lambs for the Passover sacrifice (which wasn’t for sin) but was willing to accept a human sacrifice as a metaphorical lamb also. As long as someone or something died, the Christian god was sated.
It’s not weird. You just don’t get it. You don’t have the HS or the mind of Christ.
The NT clearly teaches that Jesus was the ultimate fulfillment of all the sacrificial system of the OT.
Mark 10:45
Mark 14, Luke 22, Matthew 26 – “the blood of the new covenant for the forgiveness of sins”
John 1:29
2 Corinthians 5
I Peter 1-2
Tons of allusions and quotes back to Isaiah 53
allusions back to Genesis 22, Exodus 12; Leviticus chapters 1-6, etc.
Even the Qur’an alludes to the blood substitutionary ransom sacrifice. (points to the original infallible text of Genesis 22) many centuries before Islam.
You just condemned the Qur’an, since the Qur’an also unknowingly affirmed / confirmed ŲŖŲµŲÆŪŁ (and its related forms of the word) the NT and the OT.
“no; you did not refute anything; and you say the same broken record of your defenses of Islam and Qurāan.”
LOL!! Wonderful response from Kennywise the clown!
Focus Kennywise. Your religion is fraudulent. Your NT was written by anonymous clowns who were not inspired. Jesus could not be the Passover lamb, for the reasons I gave above.
First, thank you for answering my question. Second, can you please show me from jewish scripture where the passover lamb is said to be a sacrifice for sin? Third, can you please cite any reference from christian scripture to yom kippur?
Exodus 12 shows that the blood sacrifice of the Passover lamb applied to the doorposts protected the Jewish homes from the wrath of God expressed through the death / judgement angel.
The wrath of God is His judgement against sin and so the sacrifice of the Passover lamb and blood applied caused the death angel to passover those houses.
It was not a sacrifice for sin. That is quite different. Remember Ken human sacrifice is an abomination according to the prophets. This proves Christianity is a false religion.
Yes it was because it protected them from the wrath angel of death, which is judgement on sins and idolatry.
Also, the Qur’an unwittingly and unknowingly teaches the principle of substitutionary atonement by appropriating the story of Abraham and his willingness to sacrifice his son (gotten from Genesis 22, and changed a little)
Surah 37:107
“We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice”
Tovia Singer believes in Genesis 22 and life of David and Solomon as is, in 1-2 Samuel; 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles, Daniel, etc. as God’s word and not tampered with. What is his explanation of Deut. 7, 9, Joshua and 1 Samuel 15?
SOLUTION: For many years the prevailing view of critical scholars has been that there was no city of Jericho at the time Joshua was supposed to have entered Canaan. Although earlier investigations by the notable British archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon confirmed the existence of the ancient city of Jericho, and its sudden destruction, her findings led her to conclude that the city could have existed no later than ca. 1550 b.c. This date is much too early for Joshua and the children of Israel to have been party to its demise.
However, recent reexamination of these earlier findings, and a closer look at current evidence indicates that not only was there a city that fits the biblical chronology, but that its remains coincide with the biblical account of the destruction of this walled fortress. In a paper published in Biblical Archaeology Review (March/April, 1990), Bryant G. Wood, visiting professor to the department of Near Eastern Studies at the University of Toronto, has presented evidence that the biblical report is accurate. His detailed investigation has yielded the following conclusions:
1. That the city which once existed on this site was strongly fortified, corresponding to the biblical record in Joshua 2:5, 7, 15; 6:5, 20.
2. That the ruins give evidence that the city was attacked after harvesttime in the spring, corresponding to Joshua 2:6, 3:15, 5:10.
3. That the inhabitants did not have the opportunity to flee with their foodstuffs from the invading army, as reported in Joshua 6:1.
4. That the siege was short, not allowing the inhabitants to consume the food which was stored in the city, as Joshua 6:15 indicates.
5. That the walls were leveled in such a way to provide access into the city for the invaders, as Joshua 6:20 records.
6. That the city was not plundered by the invaders, according to Godās instructions in Joshua 6:17ā18.
7. That the city was burned after the walls had been destroyed, just as Joshua 6:24 says.
Ken, donāt believe outdated scholarship from 1990.
Today, scholars agree almost unanimously that the Book of Joshua holds little historical value.
See: Killebrew, Ann E. (2005). Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, and Early Israel, 1300ā1100 B.C.E. Society of Biblical Literature. ISBN 9781589830974.
Kenyonās work was corroborated in 1995 by radiocarbon tests which dated the destruction level to the late 17th or 16th centuries BCE. See: Bruins & van der Plicht 1995, p. 213.
The Hebrew word for āsin offeringā is āhattatā.[39] This word never appears in conjunction with the Passover sacrifice. Rather, in Exodus 12:27, the Hebrew word is āzebahā (i.e., āthe Passover zebah/sacrifice of the Lordā; similar to the general Arabic word āzibahā, which also just means āsacrificeā).[40] Of course, a āsacrificeā could be for the specific purpose of atonement (a sin sacrifice or offering), but the fact that the Passover sacrifice is never referred to as a āhattatā (sin offering) refutes the notion that it had that purpose. It never did.
So, what was the purpose of the Passover sacrifice? In Exodus 12:11, the sacrifice is referred to as āthe Lordās Passoverā.[41] Commenting on this verse, the Jewish scholar Rashi stated that:
ā[t]he sacrifice is called ×¤Ö¼Ö¶×”Ö·× because of the skipping and the jumping over, which the Holy One, blessed be He, skipped over the Israelitesā houses that were between the Egyptians houses. He jumped from one Egyptian to another Egyptian, and the Israelite in between was saved. [āTo the Lordā thus implies] you shall perform all the components of its service in the name of Heaven. (Another explanation:) [You should perform the service] in the manner of skipping and jumping, [i.e., in haste] in commemoration of its name, which is called Passover (פֶּהַ×)ā¦ā[42]
So, the sacrifice was a commemoration of the āskippingā that God did with the last plague by avoiding the Israelite houses and only striking the Egyptian houses. While it is true that the sacrifice protected the Israelites from immediate death (not death in general), there is no indication that it served to atone for their prior sins.[43]
In the Midrash Pesachim, the sacrifice is described as follows (emphasis ours):
ā[The] Passover-offering [is offered] because the Omnipresent One passed over the houses of our ancestors in Egypt. Unleavened bread [is eaten] because our ancestors were redeemed from Egypt. [The] bitter herb is [eaten] because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our ancestors in Egypt. In every generation a person must regard himself as though he personally had gone out of Egypt, as it is said: āAnd you shall tell your son in that day, saying: āIt is because of what the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt.āā Therefore it is our duty to thank, praise, laud, glorify, exalt, honor, bless, extol, and adore Him Who performed all these miracles for our ancestors and us; He brought us forth from bondage into freedom, from sorrow into joy, from mourning into festivity, from darkness into great light, and from servitude into redemption.ā[44]
So, the sacrifice was for thanksgiving, and while it talks about āredemptionā, this redemption was from slavery in Egypt, not redemption from sins. Again, not once are the words āsinā or āatonementā mentioned.
In addition, William S. Morrow explains that:
ā[b]y late Second Temple times, the Passover had become a kind of toda: a thanksgiving sacrifice offered at the altar that remembered the Exodus experience.ā[45]
Moreover, Morrow also observes that the sacrifice had nothing to do with sin (emphasis ours):
ā[n]o less than the other kinds of sacrifices of well-being, the Passover lamb was a type of gift offering, which communicated Israelās commitment to honor YHWH. In fact, this is already implied in the Passover legend itself. It was not offered as remedy for sin but as an act of dedication. For it was precisely those who were marked by this ritual of devotion that the angel of death passed over (Exod 12:13).ā[46]
Finally, Morrow criticizes the narrow interpretations of Christians by stating that (emphasis ours):
āā¦there is a tendency in the church to associate sacrifice with rituals for the expiation of sin. Unfortunately, such an understanding ignores the rich meanings of sacrifice in Priestly traditions. Gift offerings were occasions for joy and praise.ā[47]
Jewish sources from the 1st century CE also confirm that the Passover sacrifice was offered as a celebratory thanksgiving offering and not as a sin offering.[48] Philo of Alexandria described the sacrifice as follows (emphasis ours):
ā[a]nd after the feast of the new moon comes the fourth festival, that of the passover, which the Hebrews call pascha, on which the whole people offer sacrifice, beginning at noonday and continuing till evening. And this festival is instituted in remembrance of, and as giving thanks for, their great migration which they made from Egypt, with many myriads of people, in accordance with the commands of God given to them; leaving then, as it seems, a country full of all inhumanity and practising every kind of inhospitality, and (what was worst of all) giving the honour due to God to brute beasts; and, therefore, they sacrificed at that time themselves out of their exceeding joy, without waiting for priests. And what was then done the law enjoined to be repeated once every year, as a memorial of the gratitude due for their deliverance.ā[49]
Josephus also emphasized the celebratory nature of Passover:
āā¦the law ordained that we should every year slay that sacrifice which I before told you we slew when we came out of Egypt, and which was called the Passover; and so we do celebrate this passover in companies, leaving nothing of what we sacrifice till the day following.ā[50]
In fact, Josephus clearly differentiated the purpose of the Passover sacrifice from the sacrifice offered for the festival that followed Passover: the feast of unleavened bread. He explained that (emphasis ours):
ā[t]he feast of unleavened bread succeeds that of the passover, and falls on the fifteenth day of the month, and continues seven days, wherein they feed on unleavened bread; on every one of which days two bulls are killed, and one ram, and seven lambs. Now these lambs are entirely burnt, besides the kid of the goats which is added to all the rest, for sins; for it is intended as a feast for the priest on every one of those days.ā[51]
He made an important point when he emphasized that the sin offerings for the feast of unleavened bread were only eaten by the high priest, not by the community. We should note that the Passover sacrifices were eaten by the whole community. This is an important distinction because sin offerings could only be eaten by priests and not by the community. This is explained by Morrow as well:
ā[t]he ritual procedures for purification [hattaāt] and reparation [asam] offerings were fairly identical. [ā¦] The fat portions were burnt on the altar and the rest of the animal eaten by priests under ritually clean conditions in the courtyard of the tabernacle.ā[52]
That the sin offering could only be eaten by the priest or any male in his family is emphasized in the Bible. Leviticus 6:26, 29 states:
āThe priest who offers it shall eat it; it is to be eaten in the sanctuary area, in the courtyard of the tent of meeting. [ā¦] Any male in a priestās family may eat it; it is most holy.ā
Ezekiel 44:29 also states that only the priests may eat certain types of offerings (the sin offering being one of them), but the Passover sacrifice is not included in this rule:
āThey will eat the grain offerings, the sin offerings and the guilt offerings; and everything in Israel devoted to the Lord will belong to them.ā
Was the Passover sacrifice any of these types of offerings? The answer is no.
“Yes it was because it protected them from the wrath angel of death, which is judgement on sins and idolatry.”
Irrelevant, moron. The Passover lamb does not protect from death in general, does it? It was not a “hattat”, which is literally what a sin offering is called in the Bible.
Also, a sin offering could only be eaten by the priests, not by the community. The Passover sacrifice was eaten by everyone. Therefore, it cannot be a sin offering.
Wood’s 1990 thesis has been weakened as more carbon-14 dating has been done. Robert Hubbard explains:
“Wood’s reading of the archaeological evidence is still subject to dispute. His dating of Jericho’s destruction to the Late Bronze Age depends heavily on carbon-14 dating of remains from Jericho’s burn layer. But a subsequent study applied high-precision radiocarbon dating to eighteen samples of carbon and six charred cereal grains from that same source and twelve other carbon samples. The results confirmed Kenyon’s original dating (1550 BC) rather than that of Wood (ca. 1400 BC). By implication, they also undermine the force of Wood’s observation that the city’s archaeological data favorably compares to the biblical data.” (The NIV Application Commentary: Joshua, 2009, p. 204)
Also, along with Jericho, the placing of Ai in the time of Joshua has also been refuted by archaeological evidence. Ironically, the evidence is also present in the name “Ai” which literally means “ruin”. The archaeological evidence shows that Ai was destroyed around 2400 BC and was reoccupied around the 12th century BC.
There is also another problem. If the Exodus occurred around the time of Ramesses II (d. 1214 BC), as most Christians believe, then even if the destruction of Jericho occurred around 1400 BC (per Wood), it would still be earlier than the time that the Bible claims the city fell. After the 40 years of wwandering, the earliest the attack on Jericho could have occurred would have been in the 1170s or 1160s. That’s more than 200 years later.
Ken, I didn’t ask for you’re interpretations but a reference from jewish scripture where the passover lamb is said to be a sacrifice for sin. Additionally I can’t help but notice you completely ignored my last question so i’ll just ask it again, can you please cite any reference from christian scripture to yom kippur?
the fact that the slaughter and blood applied protected them from God’s wrath / judgment, etc. demonstrates it was for the forgiveness of sins.
On the Yom Kippur question, patience, my friend.
It seems to me that Isaiah 53 is combining aspects of the 2 goats “taking away sins”.
See here for more, which shows the development from Leviticus 16-17 (Yom Kippur) to Isaiah 53 to the NT:
One should read all of Leviticus chapter 16 and 17 and see the context, the two goats ā one was slaughtered for atonement and one was sent away for atonement, after the priest confessed all the sins of the people of Israel onto the goat.
Here are the most relevant verses of Leviticus 16 concerning the Day of Atonement and the scapegoat:
20 āWhen he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. 21 Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness.22 The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness. (Leviticus 16:20-22)
34 Now you shall have this as a permanent statute, to make atonement for the sons of Israel for all their sins once every year.ā And just as the Lord had commanded Moses, so he did. (Leviticus 16:34)
There is also another Hebrew word for ācarryā and ābearā or ātake awayā [ ×”×× ā āsabalā ] used in Isaiah 53:4 and 53:11, that would emphasize the taking away aspect of the scape-goat (literally: āthe goat of sending awayā, or āthe goat of escapingā = ×¢×- ××× = āAzā = goat; āazelā [ ××× ] = sending away or escaping)
The whole section, beginning in Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12 has several indicators that Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is about atonement aspects of both goats in the Day of Atonement of Leviticus 16. Because the suffering servant (52:13 ā āMy servantā; and 53:11 ā āMy servant, the righteous one, will justify the manyā) both bears our sins and is slaughtered, He is fulfilling both aspects of the Day of Atonement. By both aspects, I mean both goats ā one was slaughtered and one was āsent awayā, representing 2 aspects of atonement. Because He is also called āa lambā, He is fulfilling the aspect of the Passover lamb of Exodus 12, which turned Godās wrath away from those that had the blood on the doorposts, and He is the lamb that Abraham said āGod will provide for the lamb for the sacrificeā in Genesis 22.
Isaiah 53:6 also points to the scapegoat of the Day of Atonement.
āAll of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.ā ( Isaiah 53:6)
The concept of the iniquity āfalling uponā or āencounteringā Him seems to allude back to the lot falling upon the scapegoat. And that the priest placed his hands on the head of the scapegoat and confessed all the sins of the sons of Israel over the goat was a symbol of transference of sin from us humans onto the goat.
Isaiah 53:6 is alluded to in 1 Peter 2:25 ā āFor you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and guardian of our souls.ā
Also, the shepherd imagery points to Psalm 23:1, Isaiah 40; and Micah 5:2-5, and Jesus makes that claim that He is the Messiah who is the good shepherd who will shepherd My people, etc. (John chapter 10)
Getting back to the idea of ābearing sinā ā from Isaiah 53:4 and 11-12 ā this is picked up a lot in the New Testament.
1 Peter 2:24
ā and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. ā
The last phrase, āfor by His wounds you were healedā is a direct reference to Isaiah 53:5; and the first part that He ābore our sinsā is a reference to Isaiah 53:4, 11, and 12. In fact, the LXX translation of āboreā in Isaiah 53:4 and 12 is the same Greek word in I Peter 2:24. (Ī±Ī½Ī·Ī½ĪµĪ³ĪŗĪµĪ½, from Ī±Ī½Ī±-ĻĪµĻĻ ā to carry, to carry away, to bear, to offer up (a sacrifice). This word is also used in Hebrews 7:27 (twice, offering up sacrifices, and Jesus offered Himself up); Hebrews 9:28, and James 2:21 about Abraham offering up Isaac.
Isaiah 52:13 ā āMy Servantā ā Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28. Matthew 12:1-4 also about āMy servantā which is a quote from Isaiah 42:1-4. Jesus, as the servant who serves and āgive His life a ransom for manā alludes to all of Isaiah 53, and He was clearly claiming to be the servant of Isaiah 42 and 53.
āHe will act wisely or prudentlyā = the Hebrew word here is a deep word, meaning, āHe will act wisely so as to succeed or prosperā, in carrying out the will of God. This word is also used in Joshua 1:8.
āHe will be high, and lifted up, and great exalted.ā This points to the numerous concepts of Jesusā glorification and victory over sin in His resurrection, and ascension to heaven, and His taking His seat of authority at the right hand of the Father.
Isaiah 52:14 ā āHis appearance was marred more than any manā ā 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.
Isaiah 52:15 ā āwhat had not been told them, they will see, and what they had not heard, they will understandā ā this is quoted by the apostle Paul in Romans 15:20-21, that when the gospel goes to new areas and new people groups, the mission of the suffering servant is being fulfilled and accomplished. The mission of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 52-53 is not complete until all the unreached people groups have heard, and some of them come to know the true God, the fulfillment when some from all the nations will be redeemed by the blood of the lamb. (see Revelation 5:9)
Isaiah 53:1 ā quoted in John 12:38 and Romans 10:16
Isaiah 53:2- 3 ā alluded to back in Isaiah 11:1 and as the āNetzerā [ × ×¦×Ø ] and the branch and tender shoot, (with Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15; and Zechariah 3:8 and 6:12) ā as the āNetzerā ā he was despised and rejected and this is what Matthew 2:23 is talking about when it says, āthis was to fulfill the word of the prophets, He will be called a Nazarene.ā (āNetzerā or āNazerā is the root of āNazareneā) The Jews of the south around Jerusalem were disgusted with the area of Galilee, āGalilee of the Gentilesā, and the Samaritans, because they were half Jews, mixed with the Assyrians and others peoples (see 2 Kings 17); and so many Greeks and Romans and other foreigners were up there in around Galilee. ācan anything good come out of Galilee?ā was a common saying.
Isaiah 53:4 ā quoted in Matthew 8:17;
the ābearing of sinā is alluded to in 1 Peter 2:24 and other places. The word for āpainā/āsicknessā is used in Isaiah 1:3-9 about the sins of the people. Also, Jeremiah 17:9 speaks of the heart being sick and deceitful, and although a different word for āsickā, the concept points to spiritual sickness in sin.
Isaiah 53:5 ā the last phrase is quoted in 1 Peter 2:24
Isaiah 53:6 ā alluded to in 1 Peter 2:25
Isaiah 53:7 ā 8
He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He did not open His mouth;
Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, (see John 1:29)
And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
So He did not open His mouth.
By oppression and judgment He was taken away,
And as for His generation, who considered that He was cut off out of the land of the living,
For the transgression of My people, to whom the stoke was due?
Isaiah 53:7-8 is quoted in Acts 8:30-35
30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, āDo you understand what you are reading?ā 31 And he said, āWell, how could I, unless someone guides me?ā And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this:
āHe was led as a sheep to slaughter;
And as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
So He does not open His mouth.
33 āIn humiliation His judgment was taken away;
Who will relate His generation?
For His life is removed from the earth.ā
34 The eunuch answered Philip and said, āPlease tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?ā 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.
Another interesting note is the phrase ācut off from the land of the livingā. This concept of being ācut offā is similar to the passage about the Messiah in Daniel 9:26 ā āThen after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.ā Clearly this is about the death of the Messiah predicted by Daniel, and then after His death, the temple will be destroyed, in 70 AD, as Jesus predicted in Matthew 23:36-39 and 24:1-3 and 15.
Isaiah 53:9 ā
His grave was assigned with wicked men,
Yet He was with a rich man in His death, (allusion to Joseph of Arimatheaās grave in Matthew 27:57)
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. (Quoted in 1 Peter 2:22)
Isaiah 53:10 ā
But the Lord was pleased ā (pointing to the wrath of God being satisfied by His atonement in willingly being a guilt offering- Leviticus chapter 5 and 6)
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, (Leviticus 5 and 6:1-7)
He will see His offspring, (The Messiahās āseedā is His spiritual sons and daughters by faith ā also referred to later in the passage in Isaiah 54:1-4 and Galatians 3-4)
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.
Isaiah 53:11-12
As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many, (Jesus alludes to this in Mark 10:45; and Romans 5:11-21 speaks of the justification of many by the death of Christ)
As He will bear their iniquities. (referred to at the beginning of the article)
12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
And He will divide the booty with the strong;
Because He poured out Himself to death,
And was numbered with the transgressors; (quoted in Luke 22:37; and also probably fulfilled by being crucified between 2 other criminals.)
Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, (I Peter 2:24; Hebrews 7:27; 9:28)
And interceded for the transgressors. (see Luke 23:34; Christ continues to intercede for us now ā Romans 8:34, Hebrews 7:25)
So, Isaiah 53 was a further development of the substitutionary sacrifice and the bearing of sins of the goats of the day of atonement in Leviticus 16, 17:11, (also in Leviticus 5-6) and a prediction of the Messiah to come, as almost every verse in Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is either directly quoted or alluded to in the NT.
Ken once again I didn’t ask for you’re interpretations but a reference from jewish scripture where the passover lamb is said to be a sacrifice for sin. Additionally the reason i asked you to cite any reference from christian scripture to yom kippur is because while the passover lamb is mentioned frequently the sacrifice which is the actual day of atonement is absent from christian scriptures, showing their ignorance and disproving the oft claimed “intertextualilty.” So iāll just ask it again, can you please cite any reference from christian scripture to yom kippur?
Isaiah 53 develops the 2 goats as atonements (one slaughtered and the other “sent away that bears the iniquities of all Israel”. Both slaughter and bearing iniquities is picked up in the NT all over the place. Read the whole article I already gave, will all the constant allusions back to the lamb in Genesis 22, Job’s offerings of burnt offerings for sin in the thoughts and intensions of the heart (Job 1:5 – see the word, sin, and the Lxx for thoughts and intentions – which points back to Genesis 8:21 and 6:5) The lamb of God is pointing back to Genesis 22:7-8 and Exodus 12 – when God “sees” the blood on the door posts, etc. – the atonement / slaughter protected them from the wrath of God – if they had not applied the blood, they would have been killed by God’s justice – against their own sinful hearts, which is illustrated by the idolatry and rebellion and paganism of the Egyptians and later manifested in the hearts of the sons of Israel in the golden calf incident.
So, many verses of the NT speak of Christ bearing sin – which is allusions back to the scapegoat of Leviticus 16-17 that bore / carried sin away and the other one that was slaughtered.
1 Peter 2:24
He Himself bore our sins in His body on the wood / cross . . .
You are doing that demand for the wooden and brittle kind of thinking again; demanding the exact words “Yom Kippur”.
the “bearing of sin” all over Isaiah 53 and the NT points back to the “bearing / carrying away of sin of Leviticus 16:21 of the scapegoat, the goat sent away bearing the sins.
1 Peter 2:24
Hebrews 7:27
Hebrews 9:28
the “bearing of sin” in these 3 verses are alluding back to Yom Kipper in Leviticus 16.
Both the OT and the NT require both ā the bloody substitutionary sacrifice and repentance on the part of the sinner. Genesis 22, Exodus 12 (Passover), Leviticus chapters 1-7 and 16-17, 1 Kings 8, Psalm 50:5; Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, and other passages all point to the necessity of blood sacrifice. Leviticus 17:11 is still teaching the necessity of blood sacrifice, despite the Rabbiās argument against it, and is what Hebrews 9:22 is referring to ā āwithout the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins.ā
As time allows, in later posts, I may comment on other parts of this lecture, which is basically trying to counter the arguments and evangelism that Messianic Jews and other Christians who witness to Jews make. Muslims like to use this lecture also, in making arguments against the Christian faith. (No longer available as Paul B. Williams changed his blog three times.)
One should read all of Leviticus chapter 16 and 17 and see the context, the two goats ā one was slaughtered for atonement and one was sent away for atonement, after the priest confessed all the sins of the people of Israel onto the goat.
Here are the most relevant verses of Leviticus 16 concerning the Day of Atonement and the scapegoat:
20 āWhen he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. 21 Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness.22 The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness. (Leviticus 16:20-22)
34 Now you shall have this as a permanent statute, to make atonement for the sons of Israel for all their sins once every year.ā And just as the Lord had commanded Moses, so he did. (Leviticus 16:34)
There is also another Hebrew word for ācarryā and ābearā or ātake awayā [ ×”×× ā āsabalā ] used in Isaiah 53:4 and 53:11, that would emphasize the taking away aspect of the scape-goat (literally: āthe goat of sending awayā, or āthe goat of escapingā = ×¢×- ××× = āAzā = goat; āazelā [ ××× ] = sending away or escaping)
The whole section, beginning in Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12 has several indicators that Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is about atonement aspects of both goats in the Day of Atonement of Leviticus 16. Because the suffering servant (52:13 ā āMy servantā; and 53:11 ā āMy servant, the righteous one, will justify the manyā) both bears our sins and is slaughtered, He is fulfilling both aspects of the Day of Atonement. By both aspects, I mean both goats ā one was slaughtered and one was āsent awayā, representing 2 aspects of atonement. Because He is also called āa lambā, He is fulfilling the aspect of the Passover lamb of Exodus 12, which turned Godās wrath away from those that had the blood on the doorposts, and He is the lamb that Abraham said āGod will provide for the lamb for the sacrificeā in Genesis 22.
Isaiah 53:6 also points to the scapegoat of the Day of Atonement.
āAll of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.ā ( Isaiah 53:6)
The concept of the iniquity āfalling uponā or āencounteringā Him seems to allude back to the lot falling upon the scapegoat. And that the priest placed his hands on the head of the scapegoat and confessed all the sins of the sons of Israel over the goat was a symbol of transference of sin from us humans onto the goat.
Isaiah 53:6 is alluded to in 1 Peter 2:25 ā āFor you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and guardian of our souls.ā
Also, the shepherd imagery points to Psalm 23:1, Isaiah 40; and Micah 5:2-5, and Jesus makes that claim that He is the Messiah who is the good shepherd who will shepherd My people, etc. (John chapter 10)
Getting back to the idea of ābearing sinā ā from Isaiah 53:4 and 11-12 ā this is picked up a lot in the New Testament.
1 Peter 2:24
ā and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. ā
The last phrase, āfor by His wounds you were healedā is a direct reference to Isaiah 53:5; and the first part that He ābore our sinsā is a reference to Isaiah 53:4, 11, and 12. In fact, the LXX translation of āboreā in Isaiah 53:4 and 12 is the same Greek word in I Peter 2:24. (Ī±Ī½Ī·Ī½ĪµĪ³ĪŗĪµĪ½, from Ī±Ī½Ī±-ĻĪµĻĻ ā to carry, to carry away, to bear, to offer up (a sacrifice). This word is also used in Hebrews 7:27 (twice, offering up sacrifices, and Jesus offered Himself up); Hebrews 9:28, and James 2:21 about Abraham offering up Isaac.
“You are doing that demand for the wooden and brittle kind of thinking again; demanding the exact words āYom Kippurā.”
The reason i’m employing such “wooden” thinking is because we find frequent explicit mention of the passover sacrifice in the christian scriptures as a sin atonement, and yet yom kippur is noticeably absent!
Let me ask you ask Ken, why do you think the christian bible which connects the passover sacrifice to sin, would not explicitly mention the actual DAY of atonement?!
Exactly. We find direct references to Passover in the Gospel of John and in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, but for some reason, not one mention of Yom Kippur, only alleged allusions to it. Of course, there is a simple reason. Idiots like Paul and “John” didn’t know what they were talking about, and modern Christians are too embarrassed to admit it. #ChristiansApologistsAreStupid
but it does by “takes away” in John 1:29 (sends away, as in the scapegoat of “sending away” in Leviticus 16:21) – shows it is combining the lamb from Genesis 22:7-8 and Exodus 12 and Leviticus chapters 1-6 and 16-17 and Isaiah 53, all of them.
John 1:29; Isaiah 53:4-12; ransom in Mark 10:45, 1 Peter 1:18-19; 1 Peter 2:22-24
Even if it was “combining”, that is still an error because combining the Passover sacrifice with the Yom Kippur sacrifice makes no sense. The former was a thanksgiving sacrifice, not a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins.
But to reiterate Vaqas’ point, the gospel of John makes several direct references to Passover, and only (according to Kennywise) vague allusions to the Yom Kippur sacrifice. The reason for this is quite clear. To the author of the gospel, it was imperative that he try to make Jesus’ crucifixion coincide with Passover. That is why he repeatedly emphasized that it was the Preparation Day for Passover. He was much more concerned with Passover than with Yom Kippur. Ergo, he completely misappropriated the former, and wrongly neglected the latter. The Bible is still wrong. Christianity is still false. Kennywise is still a clown.
Let me ask you again Ken, why do you think the christian bible which connects the passover sacrifice to sin, does not explicitly mention the actual DAY of atonement?
The new testament emphasis on the Messiah bearing sins, carrying them away is a direct reference to the carrying away of sins of Yom Kippur and Leviticus 16
Um no idiot. A “direct” reference would be to mention Yom Kippur and Jesus’ sacrifice in that context. Your example is an “indirect” reference. It’s a mere allusion, and a vague one at that.
This still doesn’t change the fact that the moron who wrote the gospel got so tied up and obsessed with Passover’s proximity to the crucifixion, that he invented an entire narrative around it.
“The new testament emphasis on the Messiah bearing sins, carrying them away is a direct reference to the carrying away of sins of Yom Kippur and Leviticus 16”
No it isn’t. that’s you’re interpretation, which we can of course discuss, but not my main question. The NT authors have no problem explicitly mentioning the passover sacrifice. What I want to know is why they have a problem with explicitly mentioning yom kippur when its the literal DAY of atonement?
“He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,so he did not open his mouth.”.
Jesus spoke many times during his ordeal. Either this is a false prophecy or it has nothing to do with a dying Messiah.
…for the transgression of my people he was punished.
So was it for just the Israelites’ sins or the sins of the whole world that Kennywise’s weird mangod Messiah died? Isaiah 53:8 says it was only for the former.
18 knowing that you were ransomed [ same concept in Qur’an 37:107 and Mark 10:45 and Revelation 5:9] from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold,
19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.
20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you
21 who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
Jesus was a MAN not a farm yard animal with a tail. Also, human sacrifice is an abomination according to the prophets. Conclusion: Christianity is false.
According to Paul and John, Jesus was the Paschal lamb. This shows that these two nitwits were not “inspired” because the paschal lamb was not sacrificed for the forgiveness of sins. Rather, it was more like a thanksgiving offering. Ergo, Christianity and its creepy obsession with human sacrifice are false and are inspired by Satan.
Ken do you not find it odd that the ālamb of godā would use this ritual to proclaim his deity when the original intent was to separate divinity from the sacrificial lambs? Not to mention of course as was pointed out by QB, that the sacrifice for sin was a different one entirely.
Per Maimonides, the Targum Onkelos claims the sacrifice of the lamb was meant to be a stinging refutation of Egyptian idolatry. Yet, the Christians claim that Jesus was the substitute for the lamb. Christians fall into the same demonic idolatry, except they did it with a man, not an animal. Once again…IRONY (sing-songy).
Large works have been written on the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” (the final and only infallible rule for faith and practice) – note: it means “the only infallible rule”, not “the only rule”. There are secondary rules of interpretations, creeds, confessions of faith, systematics, good commentaries, good teachers, pastors throughout history. Only the Bible (OT and NT) is infallible. https://www.ligonier.org/blog/top-five-books-five-solas-sola-scriptura/
His is only one chapter. Some of the others do have real doctorates. and James White is working on a real Phd in textual variant issues. And he explained the issues of cost and moving the family as to why he got his other doctorate from a non-accredited University.
It is not in Las Vegas, rather Washington State. Columbia Evangelical Seminary, and they tell you up front it is not accredited, but they require pastoral mentors / guides , etc.
“But you constantly act like you are a great scholar and on the same level as that level of academics and intellectual and scholarly wisdom.”
Kennywise is lying again. When did Paul ever claim to be a “great scholar” and “on the same level”? Paul never claimed to be a scholar along the lines of Ehrman and others. Instead, he refers to their works in debunking the Bible.
Kennywise is desperate at this point. The lies just keep coming.
According to Wkipedia (which I normally don’t use):
“White graduated with a BA from Grand Canyon University (formerly known as Grand Canyon College) and an MA from Fuller Theological Seminary. He earned ThM, ThD and DMin degrees from Columbia Evangelical Seminary (formerly Faraston Theological Seminary), an unaccredited online school.[1][2][3] In March 2017,[4] White announced that he is working on an accredited PhD at North-West University in Potchefstroom, South Africa in the field of textual criticism.[5][6]”
LOL, so he had a degree from a “non-accredited online school”. No wonder he is now working on getting an actual PhD from an accredited school. Wow!
I at least had a little respect for White, compared to the usual breed of Christian apologist, but now that respect is basically down to zero. He should have had the decency to admit that his “degree” is not particularly impressive and that being called “Dr” doesn’t mean anything.
James White explained all that a long time ago.
It was a matter of expenses and having to up-root the family. Phds are expensive and one has to invest in uprooting the family and moving to the campus, and spending 7 to 10 years on the project, etc.
He also debated top scholars who do have their Phds, -ie, Bart Ehrman, John D. Crossan, Robert Price, Shabir Ally, etc.
His debate opponents have included scholars such as Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Robert M. Price, Joe Ventilacion[12] and popularizers such as Dan Barker and John Shelby Spong[13] as well as Islamic scholar Shabir Ally and South African Muslim apologist Yusuf Ismail.
Waaaaait…. can no one actually see this? Catholic and Christianity have been changed and stuff so much, like you a human being who is dubbed the pope, who the catholics value a lot and may even hold them higher then themselves. This man aināt no prophet but this man seems to be able to change the rules just like that???! And before you lot tell me that being a pope means your somehow holy and stuff… ehhh have you seen some of the things the pope has done in the past? This religion is so broken due to the abuse of those who seem to be in charge and what not. I mean a king made his own church so he can get a divorce?????? Iām sorry if I offend you but how do you lot follow a religion like this. Not even that, the majority fo catholicās and Christians I run into seem like I just be that in name only. This is not an attack, just trying to get some of you lot to open your eyes a little.
far fetched
LOLOL
Yes I agree. Giulio’s, the new resident doorknob on this blog, self-assumed high intelligence is far-fetched.
quranboreblog
direct connection with God is not unique hallmark of your creepy narrow-minded understanding of Islam
Ooh you are gonna get slapped down hard Ebola š
LOL, what are you yacking about Ebola virus?
š¤
your moronic ignorant fallacious BS LOL
Ebola is a disease. How apt.
You don’t know satire Williams huh
So..the middle man / mediator lost job now
Seems like it
Actually, it is agreeing with Protestant faith – that we don’t need a priest as in the RC system on earth.
Because Jesus Al Masih (the Messiah) was the final sacrifice, atoned for sin, was a propitiation (satisfied God’s justice and wrath against sin) and high priest and rose from the dead and ever lives at the right hand of the Father praying for us believers.
Ken: āwe Protestants donāt need a priestā also Ken: āJesus is our high priestā.
“Ken: āwe Protestants donāt need a priestā also Ken: āJesus is our high priestā.”
I was just thinking that too. Irony!
Your silly religion misappropriated the Passover sacrifice and mistakenly applied it to Jesus (pbuh). That is enough to show that Christianity is a false religion. Jesus was not the “ultimate” Paschal lamb.
Er Jesus was not a lamb. He had 2 legs (not 4) and had no tail or wool.
But he was a metaphorical lamb, Paul! You just don’t understand because you don’t have the holy spirit. It’s like taking LSD.
So we are saved by a metaphorical lamb? Weird.
Yes, the Christian god wanted literal lambs for the Passover sacrifice (which wasn’t for sin) but was willing to accept a human sacrifice as a metaphorical lamb also. As long as someone or something died, the Christian god was sated.
It’s not weird. You just don’t get it. You don’t have the HS or the mind of Christ.
Human sacrifice is an abomination according to the prophets
Oh…
Williams Er Jesus was not a lamb. He had 2 legs (not 4) and had no tail or wool.
Only a moron interpreted it literally.
Christians do all the time. š
ššš Oooh, Giulio is pissed!
This doesn’t concern you Ebola virus. Better to stay out of it and not make a bigger fool of yourself.
The NT clearly teaches that Jesus was the ultimate fulfillment of all the sacrificial system of the OT.
Mark 10:45
Mark 14, Luke 22, Matthew 26 – “the blood of the new covenant for the forgiveness of sins”
John 1:29
2 Corinthians 5
I Peter 1-2
Tons of allusions and quotes back to Isaiah 53
allusions back to Genesis 22, Exodus 12; Leviticus chapters 1-6, etc.
Even the Qur’an alludes to the blood substitutionary ransom sacrifice. (points to the original infallible text of Genesis 22) many centuries before Islam.
Surah 37:107
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/10/21/so-why-did-allah-substitute-an-innocent-animal-in-the-place-of-abrahams-son/
this is totally refuted here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIlHaOsWaB0&feature=youtu.be
not refuted at all. You pick and choose what you want from Tovia Singer – he affirms Daniel was written by Daniel around 530 BC.
The NT is clearly wrong, dummy š¤£š¤£
You just condemned the Qur’an, since the Qur’an also unknowingly affirmed / confirmed ŲŖŲµŲÆŪŁ (and its related forms of the word) the NT and the OT.
Focus Kennywise. You’ve been refuted on the Quran. Stop repeating the same argument like a broken record.
Your NT wrongly presents Jesus as the Passover sacrifice. Your NT is not from God. Your religion is false and will lead to hell.
no; you did not refute anything; and you say the same broken record of your defenses of Islam and Qur’an.
“not refuted at all. You pick and choose what you want from Tovia Singer ā he affirms Daniel was written by Daniel around 530 BC.”
LOL, we use him when he is right, dumbass. When he is wrong, as in claiming that Daniel was written around 530 BC, then we call him out for that.
“no; you did not refute anything; and you say the same broken record of your defenses of Islam and Qurāan.”
LOL!! Wonderful response from Kennywise the clown!
Focus Kennywise. Your religion is fraudulent. Your NT was written by anonymous clowns who were not inspired. Jesus could not be the Passover lamb, for the reasons I gave above.
@Ken Temple
Ken, do you believe in sola scriptura?
Which is not taught in scripture!
Yes.
@Ken Temple
First, thank you for answering my question. Second, can you please show me from jewish scripture where the passover lamb is said to be a sacrifice for sin? Third, can you please cite any reference from christian scripture to yom kippur?
Exodus 12 shows that the blood sacrifice of the Passover lamb applied to the doorposts protected the Jewish homes from the wrath of God expressed through the death / judgement angel.
The wrath of God is His judgement against sin and so the sacrifice of the Passover lamb and blood applied caused the death angel to passover those houses.
It was not a sacrifice for sin. That is quite different. Remember Ken human sacrifice is an abomination according to the prophets. This proves Christianity is a false religion.
Yes it was because it protected them from the wrath angel of death, which is judgement on sins and idolatry.
Also, the Qur’an unwittingly and unknowingly teaches the principle of substitutionary atonement by appropriating the story of Abraham and his willingness to sacrifice his son (gotten from Genesis 22, and changed a little)
Surah 37:107
“We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice”
More on substitutionary atonement:
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/03/20/substitionary-atonement/
all refuted here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIlHaOsWaB0&feature=youtu.be
Tovia Singer believes in Genesis 22 and life of David and Solomon as is, in 1-2 Samuel; 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles, Daniel, etc. as God’s word and not tampered with. What is his explanation of Deut. 7, 9, Joshua and 1 Samuel 15?
Would be interesting to know.
Ken your bible is not historically reliable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTJn4b2FerE
SOLUTION: For many years the prevailing view of critical scholars has been that there was no city of Jericho at the time Joshua was supposed to have entered Canaan. Although earlier investigations by the notable British archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon confirmed the existence of the ancient city of Jericho, and its sudden destruction, her findings led her to conclude that the city could have existed no later than ca. 1550 b.c. This date is much too early for Joshua and the children of Israel to have been party to its demise.
However, recent reexamination of these earlier findings, and a closer look at current evidence indicates that not only was there a city that fits the biblical chronology, but that its remains coincide with the biblical account of the destruction of this walled fortress. In a paper published in Biblical Archaeology Review (March/April, 1990), Bryant G. Wood, visiting professor to the department of Near Eastern Studies at the University of Toronto, has presented evidence that the biblical report is accurate. His detailed investigation has yielded the following conclusions:
1. That the city which once existed on this site was strongly fortified, corresponding to the biblical record in Joshua 2:5, 7, 15; 6:5, 20.
2. That the ruins give evidence that the city was attacked after harvesttime in the spring, corresponding to Joshua 2:6, 3:15, 5:10.
3. That the inhabitants did not have the opportunity to flee with their foodstuffs from the invading army, as reported in Joshua 6:1.
4. That the siege was short, not allowing the inhabitants to consume the food which was stored in the city, as Joshua 6:15 indicates.
5. That the walls were leveled in such a way to provide access into the city for the invaders, as Joshua 6:20 records.
6. That the city was not plundered by the invaders, according to Godās instructions in Joshua 6:17ā18.
7. That the city was burned after the walls had been destroyed, just as Joshua 6:24 says.
Ken, donāt believe outdated scholarship from 1990.
Today, scholars agree almost unanimously that the Book of Joshua holds little historical value.
See: Killebrew, Ann E. (2005). Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, and Early Israel, 1300ā1100 B.C.E. Society of Biblical Literature. ISBN 9781589830974.
Kenyonās work was corroborated in 1995 by radiocarbon tests which dated the destruction level to the late 17th or 16th centuries BCE. See: Bruins & van der Plicht 1995, p. 213.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho
Lots of Hadith (along with Qur’an in Surah 37:107) affirming substitutionary ransom atonement:
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/08/23/islam-could-not-get-rid-of-the-concept-of-sacrifice-ransom-or-substitutionary-atonement/
lol crappy christian lies
You didn’t answer Vaqas’ question, stupid. Where does it say the Passover lamb was for the forgiveness of sins?
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2020/03/18/not-one-of-his-bones-will-be-broken-how-the-gospel-of-john-misappropriated-the-passover-sacrifice/
The Hebrew word for āsin offeringā is āhattatā.[39] This word never appears in conjunction with the Passover sacrifice. Rather, in Exodus 12:27, the Hebrew word is āzebahā (i.e., āthe Passover zebah/sacrifice of the Lordā; similar to the general Arabic word āzibahā, which also just means āsacrificeā).[40] Of course, a āsacrificeā could be for the specific purpose of atonement (a sin sacrifice or offering), but the fact that the Passover sacrifice is never referred to as a āhattatā (sin offering) refutes the notion that it had that purpose. It never did.
So, what was the purpose of the Passover sacrifice? In Exodus 12:11, the sacrifice is referred to as āthe Lordās Passoverā.[41] Commenting on this verse, the Jewish scholar Rashi stated that:
ā[t]he sacrifice is called ×¤Ö¼Ö¶×”Ö·× because of the skipping and the jumping over, which the Holy One, blessed be He, skipped over the Israelitesā houses that were between the Egyptians houses. He jumped from one Egyptian to another Egyptian, and the Israelite in between was saved. [āTo the Lordā thus implies] you shall perform all the components of its service in the name of Heaven. (Another explanation:) [You should perform the service] in the manner of skipping and jumping, [i.e., in haste] in commemoration of its name, which is called Passover (פֶּהַ×)ā¦ā[42]
So, the sacrifice was a commemoration of the āskippingā that God did with the last plague by avoiding the Israelite houses and only striking the Egyptian houses. While it is true that the sacrifice protected the Israelites from immediate death (not death in general), there is no indication that it served to atone for their prior sins.[43]
In the Midrash Pesachim, the sacrifice is described as follows (emphasis ours):
ā[The] Passover-offering [is offered] because the Omnipresent One passed over the houses of our ancestors in Egypt. Unleavened bread [is eaten] because our ancestors were redeemed from Egypt. [The] bitter herb is [eaten] because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our ancestors in Egypt. In every generation a person must regard himself as though he personally had gone out of Egypt, as it is said: āAnd you shall tell your son in that day, saying: āIt is because of what the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt.āā Therefore it is our duty to thank, praise, laud, glorify, exalt, honor, bless, extol, and adore Him Who performed all these miracles for our ancestors and us; He brought us forth from bondage into freedom, from sorrow into joy, from mourning into festivity, from darkness into great light, and from servitude into redemption.ā[44]
So, the sacrifice was for thanksgiving, and while it talks about āredemptionā, this redemption was from slavery in Egypt, not redemption from sins. Again, not once are the words āsinā or āatonementā mentioned.
In addition, William S. Morrow explains that:
ā[b]y late Second Temple times, the Passover had become a kind of toda: a thanksgiving sacrifice offered at the altar that remembered the Exodus experience.ā[45]
Moreover, Morrow also observes that the sacrifice had nothing to do with sin (emphasis ours):
ā[n]o less than the other kinds of sacrifices of well-being, the Passover lamb was a type of gift offering, which communicated Israelās commitment to honor YHWH. In fact, this is already implied in the Passover legend itself. It was not offered as remedy for sin but as an act of dedication. For it was precisely those who were marked by this ritual of devotion that the angel of death passed over (Exod 12:13).ā[46]
Finally, Morrow criticizes the narrow interpretations of Christians by stating that (emphasis ours):
āā¦there is a tendency in the church to associate sacrifice with rituals for the expiation of sin. Unfortunately, such an understanding ignores the rich meanings of sacrifice in Priestly traditions. Gift offerings were occasions for joy and praise.ā[47]
Jewish sources from the 1st century CE also confirm that the Passover sacrifice was offered as a celebratory thanksgiving offering and not as a sin offering.[48] Philo of Alexandria described the sacrifice as follows (emphasis ours):
ā[a]nd after the feast of the new moon comes the fourth festival, that of the passover, which the Hebrews call pascha, on which the whole people offer sacrifice, beginning at noonday and continuing till evening. And this festival is instituted in remembrance of, and as giving thanks for, their great migration which they made from Egypt, with many myriads of people, in accordance with the commands of God given to them; leaving then, as it seems, a country full of all inhumanity and practising every kind of inhospitality, and (what was worst of all) giving the honour due to God to brute beasts; and, therefore, they sacrificed at that time themselves out of their exceeding joy, without waiting for priests. And what was then done the law enjoined to be repeated once every year, as a memorial of the gratitude due for their deliverance.ā[49]
Josephus also emphasized the celebratory nature of Passover:
āā¦the law ordained that we should every year slay that sacrifice which I before told you we slew when we came out of Egypt, and which was called the Passover; and so we do celebrate this passover in companies, leaving nothing of what we sacrifice till the day following.ā[50]
In fact, Josephus clearly differentiated the purpose of the Passover sacrifice from the sacrifice offered for the festival that followed Passover: the feast of unleavened bread. He explained that (emphasis ours):
ā[t]he feast of unleavened bread succeeds that of the passover, and falls on the fifteenth day of the month, and continues seven days, wherein they feed on unleavened bread; on every one of which days two bulls are killed, and one ram, and seven lambs. Now these lambs are entirely burnt, besides the kid of the goats which is added to all the rest, for sins; for it is intended as a feast for the priest on every one of those days.ā[51]
He made an important point when he emphasized that the sin offerings for the feast of unleavened bread were only eaten by the high priest, not by the community. We should note that the Passover sacrifices were eaten by the whole community. This is an important distinction because sin offerings could only be eaten by priests and not by the community. This is explained by Morrow as well:
ā[t]he ritual procedures for purification [hattaāt] and reparation [asam] offerings were fairly identical. [ā¦] The fat portions were burnt on the altar and the rest of the animal eaten by priests under ritually clean conditions in the courtyard of the tabernacle.ā[52]
That the sin offering could only be eaten by the priest or any male in his family is emphasized in the Bible. Leviticus 6:26, 29 states:
āThe priest who offers it shall eat it; it is to be eaten in the sanctuary area, in the courtyard of the tent of meeting. [ā¦] Any male in a priestās family may eat it; it is most holy.ā
Ezekiel 44:29 also states that only the priests may eat certain types of offerings (the sin offering being one of them), but the Passover sacrifice is not included in this rule:
āThey will eat the grain offerings, the sin offerings and the guilt offerings; and everything in Israel devoted to the Lord will belong to them.ā
Was the Passover sacrifice any of these types of offerings? The answer is no.
“Yes it was because it protected them from the wrath angel of death, which is judgement on sins and idolatry.”
Irrelevant, moron. The Passover lamb does not protect from death in general, does it? It was not a “hattat”, which is literally what a sin offering is called in the Bible.
Also, a sin offering could only be eaten by the priests, not by the community. The Passover sacrifice was eaten by everyone. Therefore, it cannot be a sin offering.
Wood’s 1990 thesis has been weakened as more carbon-14 dating has been done. Robert Hubbard explains:
“Wood’s reading of the archaeological evidence is still subject to dispute. His dating of Jericho’s destruction to the Late Bronze Age depends heavily on carbon-14 dating of remains from Jericho’s burn layer. But a subsequent study applied high-precision radiocarbon dating to eighteen samples of carbon and six charred cereal grains from that same source and twelve other carbon samples. The results confirmed Kenyon’s original dating (1550 BC) rather than that of Wood (ca. 1400 BC). By implication, they also undermine the force of Wood’s observation that the city’s archaeological data favorably compares to the biblical data.” (The NIV Application Commentary: Joshua, 2009, p. 204)
Also, along with Jericho, the placing of Ai in the time of Joshua has also been refuted by archaeological evidence. Ironically, the evidence is also present in the name “Ai” which literally means “ruin”. The archaeological evidence shows that Ai was destroyed around 2400 BC and was reoccupied around the 12th century BC.
There is also another problem. If the Exodus occurred around the time of Ramesses II (d. 1214 BC), as most Christians believe, then even if the destruction of Jericho occurred around 1400 BC (per Wood), it would still be earlier than the time that the Bible claims the city fell. After the 40 years of wwandering, the earliest the attack on Jericho could have occurred would have been in the 1170s or 1160s. That’s more than 200 years later.
@Ken Temple
Ken, I didn’t ask for you’re interpretations but a reference from jewish scripture where the passover lamb is said to be a sacrifice for sin. Additionally I can’t help but notice you completely ignored my last question so i’ll just ask it again, can you please cite any reference from christian scripture to yom kippur?
the fact that the slaughter and blood applied protected them from God’s wrath / judgment, etc. demonstrates it was for the forgiveness of sins.
On the Yom Kippur question, patience, my friend.
It seems to me that Isaiah 53 is combining aspects of the 2 goats “taking away sins”.
See here for more, which shows the development from Leviticus 16-17 (Yom Kippur) to Isaiah 53 to the NT:
One should read all of Leviticus chapter 16 and 17 and see the context, the two goats ā one was slaughtered for atonement and one was sent away for atonement, after the priest confessed all the sins of the people of Israel onto the goat.
Here are the most relevant verses of Leviticus 16 concerning the Day of Atonement and the scapegoat:
20 āWhen he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. 21 Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness.22 The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness. (Leviticus 16:20-22)
34 Now you shall have this as a permanent statute, to make atonement for the sons of Israel for all their sins once every year.ā And just as the Lord had commanded Moses, so he did. (Leviticus 16:34)
A very important point I want to make is about the word ābearā or ācarryā in verse 22. This is the Hebrew word Nasaā = × ×©× and it also used several times in Isaiah 53.
Surely our griefs He Himself bore [Hebrew: × ×©×]
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted. (Isaiah 53:4)
Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
And He will divide the booty with the strong;
Because He poured out Himself to death,
And was numbered with the transgressors;
Yet He Himself bore [ × ×©× ] the sin of many,
And interceded for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:12)
There is also another Hebrew word for ācarryā and ābearā or ātake awayā [ ×”×× ā āsabalā ] used in Isaiah 53:4 and 53:11, that would emphasize the taking away aspect of the scape-goat (literally: āthe goat of sending awayā, or āthe goat of escapingā = ×¢×- ××× = āAzā = goat; āazelā [ ××× ] = sending away or escaping)
Isaiah 53 really starts in 52:13, according to context, as the chapter divisions were a later invention. āBehold, My servant, will act wisely and succeed, and He will be high and lifted up and greatly exalted.ā Note, the Hebrew word Nasaā [ × ×©× ] is also used in this verse, but in this context, it means, ālifted upā. This may be pointing to the ālifting upā of the Son of Man on the cross (John 3:14, 12:32) or the lifting up of the Son of Man in the resurrection and ascension to heaven. Almost every verse in Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12 is either quoted in the NT or alluded to the NT (see examples at end); and many aspects are alluded to back to earlier parts of the TaNakh. (the Hebrew Bible ā T = Torah; N = Nabiāim = prophets; āKhā = Ketuvim = writings (the Psalms, poetry, wisdom, and historical books. These are the three sections of the Hebrew Bible that Jesus also affirmed in Luke 24:44.)
The whole section, beginning in Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12 has several indicators that Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is about atonement aspects of both goats in the Day of Atonement of Leviticus 16. Because the suffering servant (52:13 ā āMy servantā; and 53:11 ā āMy servant, the righteous one, will justify the manyā) both bears our sins and is slaughtered, He is fulfilling both aspects of the Day of Atonement. By both aspects, I mean both goats ā one was slaughtered and one was āsent awayā, representing 2 aspects of atonement. Because He is also called āa lambā, He is fulfilling the aspect of the Passover lamb of Exodus 12, which turned Godās wrath away from those that had the blood on the doorposts, and He is the lamb that Abraham said āGod will provide for the lamb for the sacrificeā in Genesis 22.
Isaiah 53:6 also points to the scapegoat of the Day of Atonement.
āAll of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.ā ( Isaiah 53:6)
The concept of the iniquity āfalling uponā or āencounteringā Him seems to allude back to the lot falling upon the scapegoat. And that the priest placed his hands on the head of the scapegoat and confessed all the sins of the sons of Israel over the goat was a symbol of transference of sin from us humans onto the goat.
Isaiah 53:6 is alluded to in 1 Peter 2:25 ā āFor you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and guardian of our souls.ā
Also, the shepherd imagery points to Psalm 23:1, Isaiah 40; and Micah 5:2-5, and Jesus makes that claim that He is the Messiah who is the good shepherd who will shepherd My people, etc. (John chapter 10)
Getting back to the idea of ābearing sinā ā from Isaiah 53:4 and 11-12 ā this is picked up a lot in the New Testament.
1 Peter 2:24
ā and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. ā
The last phrase, āfor by His wounds you were healedā is a direct reference to Isaiah 53:5; and the first part that He ābore our sinsā is a reference to Isaiah 53:4, 11, and 12. In fact, the LXX translation of āboreā in Isaiah 53:4 and 12 is the same Greek word in I Peter 2:24. (Ī±Ī½Ī·Ī½ĪµĪ³ĪŗĪµĪ½, from Ī±Ī½Ī±-ĻĪµĻĻ ā to carry, to carry away, to bear, to offer up (a sacrifice). This word is also used in Hebrews 7:27 (twice, offering up sacrifices, and Jesus offered Himself up); Hebrews 9:28, and James 2:21 about Abraham offering up Isaac.
Another argument that the Rabbi makes is about Isaiah 53:10 ā that phrase, āHe would render Himself as a guilt offering . . . ā is harkening back to Leviticus 5:15-19 and the guilt offering there, but it states that it is only for unintentional sins, not intentional ones. But if one keeps reading into Leviticus chapter 6:1-7, one can see that the āguilt offeringā [ ××©× ] also includes intentional sins. (Thanks to Michael Brown for that insight! Answers to Jewish Objections to Jesus. 5 Volumes. In volume 2, āTheological Objections, on page 128 and following. ) Furthermore, the day of atonement emphasizes several times āfor all the iniquities of the sons of Israelā. (see Leviticus 16:20-22 and verse 34) All would include both intentional and unintentional sins.
But the Lord was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, [ ××©× ]
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand. (Isaiah 53:10)
Allusions or quotes in the NT:
Isaiah 52:13 ā āMy Servantā ā Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28. Matthew 12:1-4 also about āMy servantā which is a quote from Isaiah 42:1-4. Jesus, as the servant who serves and āgive His life a ransom for manā alludes to all of Isaiah 53, and He was clearly claiming to be the servant of Isaiah 42 and 53.
āHe will act wisely or prudentlyā = the Hebrew word here is a deep word, meaning, āHe will act wisely so as to succeed or prosperā, in carrying out the will of God. This word is also used in Joshua 1:8.
āHe will be high, and lifted up, and great exalted.ā This points to the numerous concepts of Jesusā glorification and victory over sin in His resurrection, and ascension to heaven, and His taking His seat of authority at the right hand of the Father.
Isaiah 52:14 ā āHis appearance was marred more than any manā ā 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.
Isaiah 52:15 ā āwhat had not been told them, they will see, and what they had not heard, they will understandā ā this is quoted by the apostle Paul in Romans 15:20-21, that when the gospel goes to new areas and new people groups, the mission of the suffering servant is being fulfilled and accomplished. The mission of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 52-53 is not complete until all the unreached people groups have heard, and some of them come to know the true God, the fulfillment when some from all the nations will be redeemed by the blood of the lamb. (see Revelation 5:9)
Isaiah 53:1 ā quoted in John 12:38 and Romans 10:16
Isaiah 53:2- 3 ā alluded to back in Isaiah 11:1 and as the āNetzerā [ × ×¦×Ø ] and the branch and tender shoot, (with Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15; and Zechariah 3:8 and 6:12) ā as the āNetzerā ā he was despised and rejected and this is what Matthew 2:23 is talking about when it says, āthis was to fulfill the word of the prophets, He will be called a Nazarene.ā (āNetzerā or āNazerā is the root of āNazareneā) The Jews of the south around Jerusalem were disgusted with the area of Galilee, āGalilee of the Gentilesā, and the Samaritans, because they were half Jews, mixed with the Assyrians and others peoples (see 2 Kings 17); and so many Greeks and Romans and other foreigners were up there in around Galilee. ācan anything good come out of Galilee?ā was a common saying.
Isaiah 53:4 ā quoted in Matthew 8:17;
the ābearing of sinā is alluded to in 1 Peter 2:24 and other places. The word for āpainā/āsicknessā is used in Isaiah 1:3-9 about the sins of the people. Also, Jeremiah 17:9 speaks of the heart being sick and deceitful, and although a different word for āsickā, the concept points to spiritual sickness in sin.
Isaiah 53:5 ā the last phrase is quoted in 1 Peter 2:24
Isaiah 53:6 ā alluded to in 1 Peter 2:25
Isaiah 53:7 ā 8
He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He did not open His mouth;
Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, (see John 1:29)
And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
So He did not open His mouth.
By oppression and judgment He was taken away,
And as for His generation, who considered that He was cut off out of the land of the living,
For the transgression of My people, to whom the stoke was due?
Isaiah 53:7-8 is quoted in Acts 8:30-35
30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, āDo you understand what you are reading?ā 31 And he said, āWell, how could I, unless someone guides me?ā And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this:
āHe was led as a sheep to slaughter;
And as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
So He does not open His mouth.
33 āIn humiliation His judgment was taken away;
Who will relate His generation?
For His life is removed from the earth.ā
34 The eunuch answered Philip and said, āPlease tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?ā 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.
Another interesting note is the phrase ācut off from the land of the livingā. This concept of being ācut offā is similar to the passage about the Messiah in Daniel 9:26 ā āThen after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.ā Clearly this is about the death of the Messiah predicted by Daniel, and then after His death, the temple will be destroyed, in 70 AD, as Jesus predicted in Matthew 23:36-39 and 24:1-3 and 15.
Isaiah 53:9 ā
His grave was assigned with wicked men,
Yet He was with a rich man in His death, (allusion to Joseph of Arimatheaās grave in Matthew 27:57)
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. (Quoted in 1 Peter 2:22)
Isaiah 53:10 ā
But the Lord was pleased ā (pointing to the wrath of God being satisfied by His atonement in willingly being a guilt offering- Leviticus chapter 5 and 6)
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, (Leviticus 5 and 6:1-7)
He will see His offspring, (The Messiahās āseedā is His spiritual sons and daughters by faith ā also referred to later in the passage in Isaiah 54:1-4 and Galatians 3-4)
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.
Isaiah 53:11-12
As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many, (Jesus alludes to this in Mark 10:45; and Romans 5:11-21 speaks of the justification of many by the death of Christ)
As He will bear their iniquities. (referred to at the beginning of the article)
12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
And He will divide the booty with the strong;
Because He poured out Himself to death,
And was numbered with the transgressors; (quoted in Luke 22:37; and also probably fulfilled by being crucified between 2 other criminals.)
Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, (I Peter 2:24; Hebrews 7:27; 9:28)
And interceded for the transgressors. (see Luke 23:34; Christ continues to intercede for us now ā Romans 8:34, Hebrews 7:25)
So, Isaiah 53 was a further development of the substitutionary sacrifice and the bearing of sins of the goats of the day of atonement in Leviticus 16, 17:11, (also in Leviticus 5-6) and a prediction of the Messiah to come, as almost every verse in Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is either directly quoted or alluded to in the NT.
@Ken Temple
Ken once again I didn’t ask for you’re interpretations but a reference from jewish scripture where the passover lamb is said to be a sacrifice for sin. Additionally the reason i asked you to cite any reference from christian scripture to yom kippur is because while the passover lamb is mentioned frequently the sacrifice which is the actual day of atonement is absent from christian scriptures, showing their ignorance and disproving the oft claimed “intertextualilty.” So iāll just ask it again, can you please cite any reference from christian scripture to yom kippur?
The score is now 11-0, with Vaqas leading.
You won’t get an answer bro. Kennywise the scumbag is going to beat around the bush and then disappear claiming that he’s “busy”.
Isaiah 53 develops the 2 goats as atonements (one slaughtered and the other “sent away that bears the iniquities of all Israel”. Both slaughter and bearing iniquities is picked up in the NT all over the place. Read the whole article I already gave, will all the constant allusions back to the lamb in Genesis 22, Job’s offerings of burnt offerings for sin in the thoughts and intensions of the heart (Job 1:5 – see the word, sin, and the Lxx for thoughts and intentions – which points back to Genesis 8:21 and 6:5) The lamb of God is pointing back to Genesis 22:7-8 and Exodus 12 – when God “sees” the blood on the door posts, etc. – the atonement / slaughter protected them from the wrath of God – if they had not applied the blood, they would have been killed by God’s justice – against their own sinful hearts, which is illustrated by the idolatry and rebellion and paganism of the Egyptians and later manifested in the hearts of the sons of Israel in the golden calf incident.
So, many verses of the NT speak of Christ bearing sin – which is allusions back to the scapegoat of Leviticus 16-17 that bore / carried sin away and the other one that was slaughtered.
1 Peter 2:24
He Himself bore our sins in His body on the wood / cross . . .
You are doing that demand for the wooden and brittle kind of thinking again; demanding the exact words “Yom Kippur”.
the “bearing of sin” all over Isaiah 53 and the NT points back to the “bearing / carrying away of sin of Leviticus 16:21 of the scapegoat, the goat sent away bearing the sins.
1 Peter 2:24
Hebrews 7:27
Hebrews 9:28
the “bearing of sin” in these 3 verses are alluding back to Yom Kipper in Leviticus 16.
Both the OT and the NT require both ā the bloody substitutionary sacrifice and repentance on the part of the sinner. Genesis 22, Exodus 12 (Passover), Leviticus chapters 1-7 and 16-17, 1 Kings 8, Psalm 50:5; Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, and other passages all point to the necessity of blood sacrifice. Leviticus 17:11 is still teaching the necessity of blood sacrifice, despite the Rabbiās argument against it, and is what Hebrews 9:22 is referring to ā āwithout the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins.ā
As time allows, in later posts, I may comment on other parts of this lecture, which is basically trying to counter the arguments and evangelism that Messianic Jews and other Christians who witness to Jews make. Muslims like to use this lecture also, in making arguments against the Christian faith. (No longer available as Paul B. Williams changed his blog three times.)
One should read all of Leviticus chapter 16 and 17 and see the context, the two goats ā one was slaughtered for atonement and one was sent away for atonement, after the priest confessed all the sins of the people of Israel onto the goat.
Here are the most relevant verses of Leviticus 16 concerning the Day of Atonement and the scapegoat:
20 āWhen he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. 21 Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness.22 The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness. (Leviticus 16:20-22)
34 Now you shall have this as a permanent statute, to make atonement for the sons of Israel for all their sins once every year.ā And just as the Lord had commanded Moses, so he did. (Leviticus 16:34)
A very important point I want to make is about the word ābearā or ācarryā in verse 22. This is the Hebrew word Nasaā = × ×©× and it also used several times in Isaiah 53.
Surely our griefs He Himself bore [Hebrew: × ×©×]
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted. (Isaiah 53:4)
Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
And He will divide the booty with the strong;
Because He poured out Himself to death,
And was numbered with the transgressors;
Yet He Himself bore [ × ×©× ] the sin of many,
And interceded for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:12)
There is also another Hebrew word for ācarryā and ābearā or ātake awayā [ ×”×× ā āsabalā ] used in Isaiah 53:4 and 53:11, that would emphasize the taking away aspect of the scape-goat (literally: āthe goat of sending awayā, or āthe goat of escapingā = ×¢×- ××× = āAzā = goat; āazelā [ ××× ] = sending away or escaping)
Isaiah 53 really starts in 52:13, according to context, as the chapter divisions were a later invention. āBehold, My servant, will act wisely and succeed, and He will be high and lifted up and greatly exalted.ā Note, the Hebrew word Nasaā [ × ×©× ] is also used in this verse, but in this context, it means, ālifted upā. This may be pointing to the ālifting upā of the Son of Man on the cross (John 3:14, 12:32) or the lifting up of the Son of Man in the resurrection and ascension to heaven. Almost every verse in Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12 is either quoted in the NT or alluded to the NT (see examples at end); and many aspects are alluded to back to earlier parts of the TaNakh. (the Hebrew Bible ā T = Torah; N = Nabiāim = prophets; āKhā = Ketuvim = writings (the Psalms, poetry, wisdom, and historical books. These are the three sections of the Hebrew Bible that Jesus also affirmed in Luke 24:44.)
The whole section, beginning in Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12 has several indicators that Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is about atonement aspects of both goats in the Day of Atonement of Leviticus 16. Because the suffering servant (52:13 ā āMy servantā; and 53:11 ā āMy servant, the righteous one, will justify the manyā) both bears our sins and is slaughtered, He is fulfilling both aspects of the Day of Atonement. By both aspects, I mean both goats ā one was slaughtered and one was āsent awayā, representing 2 aspects of atonement. Because He is also called āa lambā, He is fulfilling the aspect of the Passover lamb of Exodus 12, which turned Godās wrath away from those that had the blood on the doorposts, and He is the lamb that Abraham said āGod will provide for the lamb for the sacrificeā in Genesis 22.
Isaiah 53:6 also points to the scapegoat of the Day of Atonement.
āAll of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.ā ( Isaiah 53:6)
The concept of the iniquity āfalling uponā or āencounteringā Him seems to allude back to the lot falling upon the scapegoat. And that the priest placed his hands on the head of the scapegoat and confessed all the sins of the sons of Israel over the goat was a symbol of transference of sin from us humans onto the goat.
Isaiah 53:6 is alluded to in 1 Peter 2:25 ā āFor you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and guardian of our souls.ā
Also, the shepherd imagery points to Psalm 23:1, Isaiah 40; and Micah 5:2-5, and Jesus makes that claim that He is the Messiah who is the good shepherd who will shepherd My people, etc. (John chapter 10)
Getting back to the idea of ābearing sinā ā from Isaiah 53:4 and 11-12 ā this is picked up a lot in the New Testament.
1 Peter 2:24
ā and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. ā
The last phrase, āfor by His wounds you were healedā is a direct reference to Isaiah 53:5; and the first part that He ābore our sinsā is a reference to Isaiah 53:4, 11, and 12. In fact, the LXX translation of āboreā in Isaiah 53:4 and 12 is the same Greek word in I Peter 2:24. (Ī±Ī½Ī·Ī½ĪµĪ³ĪŗĪµĪ½, from Ī±Ī½Ī±-ĻĪµĻĻ ā to carry, to carry away, to bear, to offer up (a sacrifice). This word is also used in Hebrews 7:27 (twice, offering up sacrifices, and Jesus offered Himself up); Hebrews 9:28, and James 2:21 about Abraham offering up Isaac.
@Ken Temple
“You are doing that demand for the wooden and brittle kind of thinking again; demanding the exact words āYom Kippurā.”
The reason i’m employing such “wooden” thinking is because we find frequent explicit mention of the passover sacrifice in the christian scriptures as a sin atonement, and yet yom kippur is noticeably absent!
Let me ask you ask Ken, why do you think the christian bible which connects the passover sacrifice to sin, would not explicitly mention the actual DAY of atonement?!
Exactly. We find direct references to Passover in the Gospel of John and in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, but for some reason, not one mention of Yom Kippur, only alleged allusions to it. Of course, there is a simple reason. Idiots like Paul and “John” didn’t know what they were talking about, and modern Christians are too embarrassed to admit it. #ChristiansApologistsAreStupid
but it does by “takes away” in John 1:29 (sends away, as in the scapegoat of “sending away” in Leviticus 16:21) – shows it is combining the lamb from Genesis 22:7-8 and Exodus 12 and Leviticus chapters 1-6 and 16-17 and Isaiah 53, all of them.
John 1:29; Isaiah 53:4-12; ransom in Mark 10:45, 1 Peter 1:18-19; 1 Peter 2:22-24
Even if it was “combining”, that is still an error because combining the Passover sacrifice with the Yom Kippur sacrifice makes no sense. The former was a thanksgiving sacrifice, not a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins.
But to reiterate Vaqas’ point, the gospel of John makes several direct references to Passover, and only (according to Kennywise) vague allusions to the Yom Kippur sacrifice. The reason for this is quite clear. To the author of the gospel, it was imperative that he try to make Jesus’ crucifixion coincide with Passover. That is why he repeatedly emphasized that it was the Preparation Day for Passover. He was much more concerned with Passover than with Yom Kippur. Ergo, he completely misappropriated the former, and wrongly neglected the latter. The Bible is still wrong. Christianity is still false. Kennywise is still a clown.
@Ken Temple
Let me ask you again Ken, why do you think the christian bible which connects the passover sacrifice to sin, does not explicitly mention the actual DAY of atonement?
The new testament emphasis on the Messiah bearing sins, carrying them away is a direct reference to the carrying away of sins of Yom Kippur and Leviticus 16
No it isnāt. There is no notion of the messiah dying for the peopleās sins in the Jewish Bible. Itās totally a Christian idea.
No.
It is clearly taught in the Jewish Bible.
Isaiah 52:13-15
Isaiah 53:1-12
Zechariah 12:10
Wrong. You read your christianity INTO these passages.
Um no idiot. A “direct” reference would be to mention Yom Kippur and Jesus’ sacrifice in that context. Your example is an “indirect” reference. It’s a mere allusion, and a vague one at that.
This still doesn’t change the fact that the moron who wrote the gospel got so tied up and obsessed with Passover’s proximity to the crucifixion, that he invented an entire narrative around it.
@Ken Temple
“The new testament emphasis on the Messiah bearing sins, carrying them away is a direct reference to the carrying away of sins of Yom Kippur and Leviticus 16”
No it isn’t. that’s you’re interpretation, which we can of course discuss, but not my main question. The NT authors have no problem explicitly mentioning the passover sacrifice. What I want to know is why they have a problem with explicitly mentioning yom kippur when its the literal DAY of atonement?
Isaiah 53:6 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
6 All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.
Isaiah 53:7 NIV
“He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,so he did not open his mouth.”.
Jesus spoke many times during his ordeal. Either this is a false prophecy or it has nothing to do with a dying Messiah.
Isaiah 53:8 NIV
…for the transgression of my people he was punished.
So was it for just the Israelites’ sins or the sins of the whole world that Kennywise’s weird mangod Messiah died? Isaiah 53:8 says it was only for the former.
18 knowing that you were ransomed [ same concept in Qur’an 37:107 and Mark 10:45 and Revelation 5:9] from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold,
19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.
20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you
21 who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
1 Peter 1:18-21
Jesus was a MAN not a farm yard animal with a tail. Also, human sacrifice is an abomination according to the prophets. Conclusion: Christianity is false.
According to Paul and John, Jesus was the Paschal lamb. This shows that these two nitwits were not “inspired” because the paschal lamb was not sacrificed for the forgiveness of sins. Rather, it was more like a thanksgiving offering. Ergo, Christianity and its creepy obsession with human sacrifice are false and are inspired by Satan.
@Ken Temple
Ken do you not find it odd that the ālamb of godā would use this ritual to proclaim his deity when the original intent was to separate divinity from the sacrificial lambs? Not to mention of course as was pointed out by QB, that the sacrifice for sin was a different one entirely.
Excellent point brother Vaqas!
Per Maimonides, the Targum Onkelos claims the sacrifice of the lamb was meant to be a stinging refutation of Egyptian idolatry. Yet, the Christians claim that Jesus was the substitute for the lamb. Christians fall into the same demonic idolatry, except they did it with a man, not an animal. Once again…IRONY (sing-songy).
Large works have been written on the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” (the final and only infallible rule for faith and practice) – note: it means “the only infallible rule”, not “the only rule”. There are secondary rules of interpretations, creeds, confessions of faith, systematics, good commentaries, good teachers, pastors throughout history. Only the Bible (OT and NT) is infallible.
https://www.ligonier.org/blog/top-five-books-five-solas-sola-scriptura/
Where does the bible say it is the only infallible guide?
This one is a good introduction to the subject.
James White’s chapter on the early church and Sola Scriptura is very good.
https://www.amazon.com/Sola-Scriptura-Protestant-Position-Bible/dp/1567693334
Actually it is dreadful fundamentalist rubbish.
Prove it, by interacting with actual content, quotes, page numbers, arguments.
I tend not to bother refuting pseudo scholars like white with his fake PhD.
You way of deflecting and avoiding having to prove your assertion.
Not at all. You cite a pseudo scholar with fake PhD. I decline to deal with such a source.
His is only one chapter. Some of the others do have real doctorates. and James White is working on a real Phd in textual variant issues. And he explained the issues of cost and moving the family as to why he got his other doctorate from a non-accredited University.
Your way of deflecting and avoiding having to prove your assertion.
What are your credentials “studying NT at Uni at academic level” LOL
So? And yours are being a semi illiterate troll?
Ebola’s specialty is going around spewing his verbal diarrhea.
š¤®
You are running from this question as you are running from James White
Glad you dropped the fake āDrā title
Yeah, that’s right!
You don’t have a doctorate Paul Williams, so who are you to claim to be “over” others in your judgements?
Do you have a Master’s Degree?
At least I do have an Master’s of Divinity (M. Div) 3 year Master’s degree.
I donāt claim to have a PhD but white does. But it is a fake academic qualification. Thatās the difference
It is not in Las Vegas, rather Washington State. Columbia Evangelical Seminary, and they tell you up front it is not accredited, but they require pastoral mentors / guides , etc.
http://www.columbiaseminary.edu/faq.html
But you constantly act like you are a great scholar and on the same level as that level of academics and intellectual and scholarly wisdom.
That attitude exudes and oozes from most everything you write and say in your videos.
Thatās your subjective impression not my intention
What’s your academic qualification come straight dude.
“But you constantly act like you are a great scholar and on the same level as that level of academics and intellectual and scholarly wisdom.”
Kennywise is lying again. When did Paul ever claim to be a “great scholar” and “on the same level”? Paul never claimed to be a scholar along the lines of Ehrman and others. Instead, he refers to their works in debunking the Bible.
Kennywise is desperate at this point. The lies just keep coming.
A degree is only as good as the university you got it from. For example, if one procured a “degree” from a diploma mill, then it means nothing.
Or a dodgy apartment complex in Las Vegas as white did..
Where did White get his degree from?
A postal address in Las Vegas.
According to Wkipedia (which I normally don’t use):
“White graduated with a BA from Grand Canyon University (formerly known as Grand Canyon College) and an MA from Fuller Theological Seminary. He earned ThM, ThD and DMin degrees from Columbia Evangelical Seminary (formerly Faraston Theological Seminary), an unaccredited online school.[1][2][3] In March 2017,[4] White announced that he is working on an accredited PhD at North-West University in Potchefstroom, South Africa in the field of textual criticism.[5][6]”
LOL, so he had a degree from a “non-accredited online school”. No wonder he is now working on getting an actual PhD from an accredited school. Wow!
Scholars must have at least an authentic PhD to be considered such. But white boasts he is a Dr but he isnāt really.
Amazing. All these frauds walking around giving spiritual advice.
š§
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_White_(theologian)
Fundamentalist apologist and debater. That sums up his career I think.
I at least had a little respect for White, compared to the usual breed of Christian apologist, but now that respect is basically down to zero. He should have had the decency to admit that his “degree” is not particularly impressive and that being called “Dr” doesn’t mean anything.
I agree. He has duped many Christians (and Muslims!)
James White explained all that a long time ago.
It was a matter of expenses and having to up-root the family. Phds are expensive and one has to invest in uprooting the family and moving to the campus, and spending 7 to 10 years on the project, etc.
He also debated top scholars who do have their Phds, -ie, Bart Ehrman, John D. Crossan, Robert Price, Shabir Ally, etc.
His debate opponents have included scholars such as Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Robert M. Price, Joe Ventilacion[12] and popularizers such as Dan Barker and John Shelby Spong[13] as well as Islamic scholar Shabir Ally and South African Muslim apologist Yusuf Ismail.
https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/1998/06/01/of-doctorates-and-eternity-2/
He shouldnāt claim to have a real PhD if he didnāt have one!
He never claimed that – read his article from 1998 !!
LOL, then why add “Dr.” to his name?
How many evening classes did you attend and where?
He explained that, it is “ThD” – he explained the whole thing.
That’s still a doctorate, you idiot. Why was he called “Dr.” of anything if it was not from an accredited university?
James White himself answered that in his 1998 article.
You’re still not answering the question, moron. Why do I need to read an article about this? š¤
Waaaaait…. can no one actually see this? Catholic and Christianity have been changed and stuff so much, like you a human being who is dubbed the pope, who the catholics value a lot and may even hold them higher then themselves. This man aināt no prophet but this man seems to be able to change the rules just like that???! And before you lot tell me that being a pope means your somehow holy and stuff… ehhh have you seen some of the things the pope has done in the past? This religion is so broken due to the abuse of those who seem to be in charge and what not. I mean a king made his own church so he can get a divorce?????? Iām sorry if I offend you but how do you lot follow a religion like this. Not even that, the majority fo catholicās and Christians I run into seem like I just be that in name only. This is not an attack, just trying to get some of you lot to open your eyes a little.