Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are arguably scriptures about the prophecies of Jesus' death from the old Testament.
However, every successful sacrifice in the Old Testament was a burnt offering, and the Hebrew word used to describe the burnt offerings literally meant, to be carried away, up in smoke. There was literally nothing left, so why would Jesus' resurrection after his death not have negated the sacrifice. For it to count, according to Old Testament law, there should be nothing left but ashes.
A conundrum?
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say. Mind dumbing it down a bit for the intellectually impaired like me?
So if that was the case, then the prophesies were false, as that is NOT the way the Jews understood it.
You just don't get it. Prophecies are validated after-the-fact, NOT by what men expected them to be. The Jews were wrong, that is why they missed Christ, period. Any prospective use of scripture is wrong. That is Divination and is prohibited. The world and what actually happens validate prophecy.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,920,960 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You just don't get it. Prophecies are validated after-the-fact, NOT by what men expected them to be. The Jews were wrong, that is why they missed Christ, period. Any prospective use of scripture is wrong. That is Divination and is prohibited. The world and what actually happens validate prophecy.
You won't take the time to listen to the videos, but you have no problem devoting a great deal of your time trying to cast Christians and Christianity in a bad light.
You people have been given a choice. Either sit yourselves down and listen to the videos and at least attempt to objectively evaluate the historical evidence, or you can choose not to. And you people have made your choice. None of you are willing to take the time or make the effort to look at the evidence which has been gone into in great detail on the videos. But I never actually expected any of you to do so. I therefore am not about to waste my time providing the details when you people are simply going to bark 'nuh uh.'
We actually have had a look, and some invalid assumptions five minutes in. And not new ones, as we have explained. If you can't trouble to put the points for discussion, I don't see why we should.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,920,960 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
Could you provide a source for that?
There are a number of sources, but Leviticus 1 would be the primary one for the requirement of the highest sacrifice, the burnt offering.
The LDS Church has made a partial commentary on this. They discuss the blood part, but not the part that was so important on primary sacrifices, the burnt part. All other sacrifices other than the burnt sacrifices were partially eaten, the only part saved off burnt offerings was the skin.
Blood dramatized the consequences of sin and the process of forgiveness and reconciliation. Therefore, the blood symbolized both life and death (the shedding of blood representing the giving of life). Since death is the consequence of sin, the animal was slain to symbolize what happens when man sins. Also, the animal was a type of Christ. Through giving his life and suffering, Christ made it possible for us to find new life. The shedding of blood brought expiation or atonement (see Lev. 17:11; Heb. 9:22).
Isiah 53 descirbes the prophesy of He being led like a lamb to slaughter. Lambs were the primary animals used, hence the use of that word in Isiah.
Two other references:
Leviticus 17:11: "For the soul of the flesh is in the blood and I have assigned it for you upon the altar to provide atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that atones for the soul."
And:
The Hebrew word for burnt offering is olah, from the root Ayin-Lamed-Hei, meaning ascension. It is the same root as the word aliyah, which is used to describe moving to Israel or ascending to the podium to say a blessing over the Torah. An olah is completely burnt on the outer altar; no part of it is eaten by anyone. Because the offering represents complete submission to G-d's will, the entire offering is given to G-d (i.e., it cannot be used after it is burnt). It expresses a desire to commune with G-d, and expiates sins incidentally in the process (because how can you commune with G-d if you are tainted with sins?). An olah could be made from cattle, sheep, goats, or even birds, depending on the offerer's means.
You won't take the time to listen to the videos, ...
I sat through two of them and the 'evidence' consists of the usual a priori assumption that the gospels are true. That is nothing more than using the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. It even specifically puts forward the gospel of Mark as 'evidence'. You cannot do that, well, you can but it will not be seen as evidence of any value - it is circular reasoning and a logical fallacy. Like the others here, I would be more than willing to address any specific points in the videos that you feel is verifiable evidence for the crucifixion of your man-god but to expect us to sit through an hour of erroneous 'evidence'...all of which has been debunked a thousand times over is a bit much. It's no good saying that we need to watch it all; there must be parts that you feel are convincing and supported by verifiable evidence...so let's hear what you have.
I sat through two of them and the 'evidence' consists of the usual a priori assumption that the gospels are true. That is nothing more than using the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. It even specifically puts forward the gospel of Mark as 'evidence'. You cannot do that, well, you can but it will not be seen as evidence of any value - it is circular reasoning and a logical fallacy. Like the others here, I would be more than willing to address any specific points in the videos that you feel is verifiable evidence for the crucifixion of your man-god but to expect us to sit through an hour of erroneous 'evidence'...all of which has been debunked a thousand times over is a bit much. It's no good saying that we need to watch it all; there must be parts that you feel are convincing and supported by verifiable evidence...so let's hear what you have.
I couldn't have written better myself, old whelk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
From my perspective, Jesus Christ's Atonement ended sacrifice by the shedding of blood. The "burnt offerings" bit, I see as irrelevant.
Ah. That's one I hadn't thought of. Not the death, as it was only temporary. So I thought the pain or the acceptance of pain as the price paid or the sacrifice made. But the shedding of sacred blood is the sacrifice. Then why crucifixion, flogging, mocking and humiliation? Just a slitting of wrists would do it. Throat even more appropriate.
I'm afraid 'God had his reasons' would not be an explanation. If you go back to Paul, his idea is the acceptance of the horror of the cross, not the shedding of blood or even being dead for a bit, was the sacrifice.
What you think, Katz?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
