the story of Abraham and Issac certainly shows a very close flirtation with the notion of human sacrifice as appeasement of the Yahweh deity. The story accredits a perfection of faith for Abraham as being willing to go through with blood sacrificing his only son in order to be totally obedient to this deity figure. Now the apologetics for rationalizing this (because on some level EVERYONE sees this as disturbingly heinous - blood sacrificing human beings to a deity figure), is that Abraham firmly believed that the Yahweh deity would provide an alternative, and thus provide an out - but according to the account he was on the verge of plunging the knife. It's one of the most singularly disturbing narratives in the Hebrew bible. That a deity figure would test a person by seeing if they're willing to commit murder (of their own child, no less). It's the kind of thing we today would associate with the very most despicable cult leaders.
This is all so interesting, even if you are not a practicing believer, it still feels like we are uncovering the deeper story and there is something deep here
Christianity is a misconception of the NT, it is in the NT as false teaching called out by Paul, as Gentile converts thought the law had been done away with by Jesus. I have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity' for NT truth.
the more you uncover, the more shocking you realize this multi centuries long deception is. Read Andrew collins book about the fallen race of Angels and how those early myths along with the first religion of EGypt had a lot to do with the twisted and changed early Christian/Judaism religion. All scholars believe that the book of Genesis and the "torah" was not even written until the Babylon captivity. It was not written by Moses or Abraham.
Wow!! I’m floored!! Dr. Tabor, this is great!!! Thank you for sharing!!! So many conflicts within the teachings of Jesus, so many contradictions with the Torah and prophets…Figuring all of this out and their origins is a daunting task!!! If only people could break free and not have the fear of “hell” so that they could begin honestly looking at their canon!!
Suffer the little children to come to me! Unless you become as one of these children you will in no way enter in! The Word of God surely knows how to receive the gift of God! Eternal life! Thanks for sharing your analysis!! Excellent work 🙏
Very well done James. Thank you. Personally I do see a correlation with the Passover lamb and how its blood on the doorposts caused the death to limp over their homes, but that was neither a sin offering, nor was that blood touched, it was applied with hyssop.
Saul was purportedly Jewish, even though he didn’t live in Israel, but many commentators have found the origins of the Eucharist puzzling because they believe that, due to the Jewish strictures on blood, it would have been unthinkable for an Orthodox Jew to contemplate drinking blood, even if only symbolically. Have you addressed that issue?
Either he was a Greek proselyte as the Ebionites claimed or he was a _minim_ who advocated abominations like pretend cannibalism and pretend vampirism from a pretend human blood sacrifice after being staurowed on a stauros.
Thank you Dr. Tabor for bringing the message of repentance closer to the religious . Maybe some can get the revelation of self, the horrors of self and sin, iniquity and repent some day like Job did in the dust and ashes. The churches don't use those tokens. We don't beat our breasts or tear our clothes. A tactileless intellectual greek based theology.
It depends on which church. That is the problem. When someone says they are a "Christian", you must ask which denomination. They all have different emphasis and interpretation. It is good that you "don't beat [y]our breasts or tear [y]our clothes." Otherwise, you will likely have significant medical and clothing expenses. Guilt, repentance, sin, and self-obsession are the horrors. Anguish leads to negative emotional and spiritual consequences. Humility and healthy self-esteem leads to satisfaction and wisdom. Go into the darkness of a church to pursue the past. Go into the brightness of nature to experience life.
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for your souls upon the altar; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul." Lev. 17:11 Berean Study Bible ; "According to the law, in fact, nearly everything must be purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Hebrews 9:22 Berean Study Bible. The use of blood for atonement is a long standing biblical principle going back to Adam and Eve
Human sacrifice was and is against God's Torah. I'm assuming you're a Christian. If you believe that Jesus/Yeshua died completely sinless, then dying by way of sacrifice would've been a sin. Also, if you study the Torah, you realize that if he was a true "blood sacrifice," his body would've been purified, washed, laid up on the altar, and slaughtered. Some, in fact most, sacrifices were eaten by the Levitical priests. This would have been impossible since eating human flesh is forbidden. I also want to add that Yeshua/Jesus was severely blemished through being beaten. All the sacrifices were to be perfect with NO bodily blemishes. He would not have been accepted.
My Bible is my only source of Faith and Practice. I will evaluate your statements, as well as Dr Tabor's, accordingly with all due respect. The blood sacrificial offering is well documented in the holy scripture. Jesus Christ is the Passover Lamb offered once and for all to redeem all who come to him in true faith. History is full of heroic men and women who "sacrificed" their lives so that their loved ones could live. Jesus Christ was willing to lay down his life knowing how the shedding of his innocent blood would pay the price of redemption. Such a tremendous Truth for us to embrace and understand and to declare with good faith .
@@arbitScaleModels YES . Our Messiah is the Son of God- not God the Son. Once we are clear on this distinction then the "whole truth" falls into place. The Father is SUPREME. Praise God - Amen
thankfully, I don't place much believe in the every older new test. I think a lot of it is made up by a desert cult (just because the JEWS said that in Leviticus doesn't mean a real god said it to ancient Israelite or that it is true...) and is just allegorical or symbolic. what about the sacred Rig Vedas writings? what about Zoroastrianism or ancient Babylonian religions? Why are they not important? the Israel bible of old test was not for you and me. It was for that desert middle east TRIBE called Israelite wayyyy back then, not today. It was hijacked and "updated" by the modern Jesus movement in the first century of Rome. BUT FEAR NOT, "paulkeniston...". Mankind does show a propensity in history to sin and all of mankind around the world needed spiritual intervention of the Gods. THIS is hwy all over the world mankind pursued religions, the sky at night, and prayed to THE GODS of old. Look at ancient Egypt. Even ATlantis had a religion! Pray to those gods and your life will turn around for the better. read some of the new testament but combine it with other books spiritual writings. AMEN?
Thank you for showing and explaining what the Bible really means about true sacrifice: a broken spirit and a broken and contrite heart, repentance and turning from sin, a personal relationship with God, not slaughtering animals and shedding blood, which always deeply disturbed me. I don’t understand why Paul turned it into a human sacrifice Gospel with all the blood washing g our sins - I could never except that and it never sounded like Jesus’ Gospel. Thank you for you wisdom and share, always in deep gratitude 🙏 🪷
I wonder if Paul crystalized concerns that had been arising for decades about Jesus' death and non immediate return? "How could tis amazing guy die like this? How does it fit into some Divine order?" They had no answer so the idea of literalizing the "Pachal lamb" whose blood saved the Israelites in Egypt began to take hold. This something they could grasp. Did Paul originate it? I don't know.
Paul was a pharisee. Taught by Gamaliel. When he "laid the foundations" he brought much of his thought patterns and reasoning paths into Christianity, how he made sense of a man he never met physically and was not taught by personally.
@@MyDogBooBoo Don't trust Paul. He claimed to be a Pharisee but did not act like one. Luke falsely claims Paul was taught by Gamaliel. Don't trust Luke either.
The requirement of a broken heart and a contrite spirit is brought up in your discussion. Laban, a character out of Genesis, could represent the opposite of this. His name is Lamed, Beit, and Nun sofit. Lamed and Beit could be Leb, or Heart, with the Nun sofit as Son of, or continues in. The heart continues, i.e. not broken. I have not found this in any writings but if there is some support please share this. Shalom. Thank you Dr. Tabor.
Very interesting and vitally significant in understanding the mercy and forgiveness of HaShem and the role of repentance. Christians ignore repentance and forgiveness as it is demonstrated throughout the Hebrew Scripture. I hadn’t noticed or considered Paul as the source for the idea of atonement through the blood of Jesus. Certainly makes sense as you presented it so eloquently, Dr. Tabor. Thank you so much!
Paul is the source for nearly all if not all the problematic parts of the "new testament". Christianity really has nothing to do with Jesus, it's just all Paul.
@@Benjamin-jo4rfits interesting to how Jesus said he was gonna judge according to ones conduct and showing kindness to the poor in Matthew ”For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father’s glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct.“ Matthew 16:27 NABRE Yet Paul was the one who no you have to accept Jesus as savior and if not your gonna be destroyed in hell and being a good person doesn't matter.that means evil Christians like the crusaders are in heaven but pacifists like ghandi are in hell and all the victims of the holocaust all in hell If that isn't evil idk what Is
I converted to Christianity and became a messianic jew out of fear and I struggle with so much depression and anxiety and sadness from it just the thought of all my ancestors are in hell just for being Jewish like idk if I want to go to heaven if literally all my friends and family and ancestors are in hell even tho they practiced loving kindness like the Tanakh teaches all they're lives and loved Hashem with all they're heart and soul i think it's probably the most evil thing imaginable and I think about everyday and I'm constantly depression and sad because of it it has really fucked my head up but I stay a Christian out of fear even though I think it's evil
"Christians ignore repentance and forgiveness" This is a silly myth of anti-Christian polemics. Repentance from sin is an absolute must in Christianity, and that's why metanoia-repentance is taught throughout the New Testament, including in Paul's writings: Romans 2:4, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.
That’s just wrong. Repentance and forgiveness are CRUCIAL tenants. Where could you possibly come up with that. You should not comment on things you don’t know or read about.
It's SUCH a HIDEOUS thought!!! I worked so hard to believe this horrible idea and finally, after 40 years, gave up and have been much better for the forgetting.
The fact that many people are waking up to this truth you are revealing to us about Paul is just more proof the fig tree has blossomed and the end of this age is near. Jer 16:19-21 tells us the gentiles will become aware of the truth that YHWH is God alone in the day of affliction. Its our eyes that have been blinded in part. This is due to the centuries of false doctrine promoted by Paul the false apostle.
Didn't Prof. Elaine Pagels write a book how how the Revelation was initially a Jewish, rather than a Christian work? I think your idea of the Revelation being a Jewish book is great.
When you think about it, it's really gross if it were for real as the Jews and Romans thought the Christians were receiving the eucharist - actual human flesh and actual human blood. And it's a violation of the few commandments that James ordered Paul take to his churches in Acts 15, and reminded Paul of in Acts 21.
The cup of life was for the waters of life….not the blood of a tortured carnal flesh suit…drinking blood out of such a vessel may be more of a curse! The scribes are trying to put people under the old laws and the Talmud….and those laws state you are not to eat the flesh of any animal tortured or strangled…Jesus was allegedly severely tortured, and crucifixion is akin to being suffocated because of the pressures involved on the chest cavity…and the Vatican perform ‘rites’ to make the wafer the actual flesh etc…symbolically what sorcery are people symbolically consenting to. I have a very saddening and growing suspicion that the Vatican are walking their flock into a trap and to slaughter! There’s also scripture about horse leeches and the blood lickers and not eating/drinking the blood….this I doubt had anything to do with eating regularly prepared meat, and everything to do with people staying young by drinking the blood of infants….or for more occulted hormonal benefits! If drinking blood brought a curse…what are folk doing every Sunday? There’s something deeply deeply troubling about what they’ve wrapped around Jesus’s good teachings….and it’s been suggested that the bible as we know it (not the words of Jesus) is actually the doctrine of Babylon that was translated by Alexander from the Septuagint. You also have to remember that it is the Vatican and the Church of England that control the worldwide Roman legal civil system of law….that has tricked us over generations to take another’s name (kanah - the surname or the person) and serve a cleverly disguised Caesar and to step onto the Vatican’s ship that sails the commercial sees/seas! It’s difficult to have such discussions with believers because they’re under a spell…they can’t separate Jesus from the scribes clever trickery and crafty works! I sincerely hope my suspicions are wrong…I truly do. I’ll stop rambling lol! I don’t mean any offence to anyone reading this, with a heart filled with love, I’m just trying to warn that all is not what it seems. Take care 🙂💕
Hello Dr.Tabor I really enjoy watching your videos as I have recently started a passion for religious studies. I dont know if you will see this but I have a question you say that Mark's gospel was influenced by Paul but why do you also say that Mark's gospel does not claim Jesus was divine. Thank you so much!
I believe now,,, everything before Constantine’s Creed, is truth. And the path is narrow and few find it. Yahusha in the name of Yahuah. 🙏 ‘’You breathe his name every day’’
The first thing Paul got from Jesus was stern correction. Why did Paul rebel against instruction like that spoken by Stephen. There were Jews who were on the way of life the old-fashioned way--through the written word. Jesus brought us a new and living way. It begins with washing of water. To be clear, one must receive more than faith in that first baptism. In Jesus are also the gifts of faith for righteousness, faith for holiness and to become a "son of God" which requires another birth. Only when Christ is fully formed in you, can you be born in the image of Christ. This is that angel of your presence that passes on first, before your body follows. This is about the life in your blood that needs to be quickened like wine. You can look at the way of life by the court design of Moses, the changes in Abraham or the gospels which are titled with words that DEFINE the portion taught. Love grows, faith grows, hope grows, wisdom grows. We will never equal God, but we can become more like Jesus. Baptism in water washes away past sins. The blood of Jesus was shed two thousand years ago for sins you won't commit until next year. You must believe, receive, confess. Paul had studied the written word to obtain whatever faith he had. The first thing he received from Jesus was a stern rebuke, Why was he rebelling against direction given. Jesus offers you faith that is multi-portioned. You receive the spirit of Jesus. You follow him. He will offer you righteousness and holiness. Students will follow a teacher. Inevitably, they will follow to heaven or hell. Our teacher is he that he loves you so completely that the forgiveness of your future sin is in his nail-scarred hand. It's discouraging to see students who look for reasons not to believe. Rebellion is as witchcraft. What about students who were first drawn to the Proton by cords of love. Who misdirects them to a place where they want to cut those cords "asunder" as if they were "bonds" rather than love. I love a teacher who can say, I don't understand this" instead of giving reasons why it cant bd true. The gospels are lessons taught to four classes of students in the last year of Jesus' ministry. Mark is by definition the first portiont/preparation of the heart. Mat-theou/Matthew asks us the receive the spirit of the father/ righteousness/the alpha and omega with us/possibly מאתו. Luke is the third year students/the latter portion/לוק. Luke is about holiness.) The closest disciples like John pictured in the bosom or leaning on his chest were in the graduating class. (John, "the beginning of the response of Jah/ יענה/In the beginning was the Word." There is no Q. The variations in the gospels are very important. How terrible that students are so indoctrinated from childhood that their faith is already on shiftings sand.
I don't think Paul made the atonement up. He got it from the OT. The high priest on the Day of Atonement takes upon himself the sins of the people. Instead of the high priest being sacrificed, he transfers the sins onto the animal sacrifice. The people are supposed to repent in preparation for this day. The atonement covers unintentional sins. It doesn't cover murderers. They were executed.
What a comforting rationalization of child sacrifice to pay the price for human sin that was permitted and enabled with full divine forethought. Why not create a universe where atonement had already been achieved without child sacrifice ?
To what extent is Paul committed to converting Gentiles to a new religion? To what extent in that commitment he is absorbing the ideas and rituals of the Gentiles, such as the Mithra followers?
It's an analogy to the Passover Lamb, right? The death of the innocent that removes sin and protects from judgement. It's not much of a leap. When Peter and James met the resurrected Jesus, did they not think that it was significant? What meaning did they attribute to the event?
The ransom = we must each die to SELF (old carnal man, 1st Adam) so we can live (new spiritual man, last Adam). No one can do it for us. The gospels are allegory.
If I recall right, Dr. Tabor, Christian scholar E. W. Bullinger opposed the notion that Christians were "washed in the blood" of Jesus. He interpreted the Book of Revelation differently. He noted that some people could get that concept from Revelation 1:5 etc., but he pointed out that the Greek "EN" could mean "by virtue of" instead of "physically within." The passage in the Book of Isaiah can also be interpreted as "sins" being put for "sinners." The sinners would be washed white.
Jesus revelation to John: Rev 7;14 “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Whatever claim we may make about our beliefs it will be up to Jesus to judge.
1. AND it came to pass as he sat at supper with his disciples one of them said unto him: Master, how sayest thou that thou wilt give thy flesh to eat and thy blood to drink, for it is a hard saying unto many? 2. And Jesus answered and said: The words which I spake unto you are Spirit and they are Life. To the ignorant and the carnally minded they savour of bloodshed and death, but blessed are they who understand.
I was taught that being "washed in the blood" making the sinner white as snow actually refers to Leprosy that turns the affected being fully white diagnosed the ending of the disease for that person.
Blood and Wine are also offered to Goddess Kali during the Tantric worship. So, worship of Jesus with blood and wine is in a way a left-hand tantric ceremony. Blood, the colour red is connected with Shakti (she always wears red colour clothes.), the consort of Lord Shiva. Ascended masters taught the blood offering as the Violet Flame Meditation.
Dr Tabor you miss out the new covenant that all this is part of, all before is symbolic of the way that the Father, Son and Spirit baptise and justify believers.
It seems as if in ancient history, people were superstitious about a lot of different things that they weren't able to comprehend. And they had many different types of culturally specific religious beliefs, ritual practices, temples, festivals, etc. and a huge part of the world is still addicted to the Judeo-Christian religious beliefs.
I don't know how I missed this when it came out, but for me, it's your most important video to date. Christianity definitely reflects Paul's pagan influence. Both Jesus and John the Baptizer taught salvation through repentance, not animal (or human) sacrifice. As you pointed out: "John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins." -Mark 1:4 "No one can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for them." -Psalms 49:7 Indeed, the term "The Lord's Supper" was so associated with pagan Mithraism, it was an embarrassment for the early church fathers. And the early Roman center for Mithraism was in wealthy Tarsus, Paul's native city. The name of the rite was changed to the Eucharist, or later, to communion. Interesting fact, when it came time for communion, George Washington got up and went home.
Very interesting. I follow the logic behind Tabor’s ideas here, even if I question his motivation. However this is an alternative narrative and interpretation which he has constructed, which does not mean that it is actually true. The weakness of his narrative and arguments is seen in his liberal use of multiple assumptions to ‘fill in the gaps’ (a characteristic also of Bart Ehrman’s ideas), in order to present his ‘alternative story’. The weakness of these presumptions means that Tabor’s ‘story’ is highly speculative, instead of factual. It is interesting, but I wouldn’t place too much trust in the speculations of academics like Tabor and Ehrman, particularly since they offer no better spirituality to their listeners. All that they would leave their listeners who trust their narratives, is an emptiness where there was once hope.
@@rylands4289 Yes it is "scholarship", I agree. As such, it represents the diverse and multiple opinions of academics who have attempted to write their own gospels, adding to the ancient list of non canonical gospels - the difference between these modern non canonical versions like Tabor's and Ehrman's from the other ancient attempts to rewrite the gospels, is not as great as you may think. While their methodology may be different, their results of denials are the same. Also the absence of theology is not a strength but a weakness, particularly bearing in mind the backslidden state of these men who were once faithful believers. While you say you attend Sunday Bible study and that is the extent of your studies, others study every day of the week and have a great interest in both archaeology and history behind the New Testament. I find Tabor very interesting, but flawed because of his filling in the gaps with presumptions and opinions which reflect his own bias.
Again, great scholarly work here. What you, Dr. Ehrman, and other Biblical scholars demonstrate to me is that, 1) "Man" has spiritual revelations. 2) Men want to help others. 3) Men experience spirituality through the uniqueness of their personal interpretation. 4) Man's supposed intelligence over-complicates the revelation to the point where, often eventually, Man kills other men over differences in the individual revelations (Catholic and Protestant, Sunni and Shite, etc.). Actual Biblical history "should" prove to every soul that we are witnessing the opinions of individuals whose inspiration applies to that individual. If only the people of the world would understand that if someone is telling you - you will burn in Hell for not believing exactly as "I believe," and simply follow the rule that Jesus, and others, taught: Believe in Love, and forgiving others. Not judging others and practicing unconditional love is the key to happiness. If you don't believe that, I will not judge you. It's your business, not mine. All I know is that I love you, no matter who you are and what you did. I forgive you. This is for my salvation and sanity. This is all I really have control of.
Why was Paul “persecuting” the church initially tho? Obviously it wasn’t observance to Torah. I’m guessing is he would have seen/ known about the lords supper and baptism bc what else distinguished the so called christians? Although Paul claims he received information from the lord. What was prior to Paul?
I tend to think that Paul, in his philosophy, was trying to justify himself for the persecutions he had committed against the early believers. I'm convinced it was through contact with those people, in the course of those persecutions, that led to his eventual conversion, and created within himself a guilt that could only be assuaged by creating a new vision that essentially let him off the hook for the crimes he had committed.
One, I would think, would have to look at the anointing with blood of the horns of the alter in the old testament as ordered by God through Moses, as well as God referencing blood as being life in the old testament. The use of blood is mentioned several times in the old testament. It is clear in the old testament that if one wishes to slit the throat of a lamb one must do something with the blood or for that matter any animal. If Paul knew of the process of sacrifice at the temple blood would be a clear understanding of any problem. It is also clear in the Old Testament that there is sin sacrifice or animals being destroyed to free oneself of sin. I ask this question of Dr Tabor was there blood animal sacrifice for sin inside or at the gate of the 2nd temple during Jesus life?
Let me understand this. So anything that’s in the Gospels and is similar to Paul comes from Paul. With this logic we can conclude Paul created Jesus. The 12 Apostles, the birth of Jesus from the lineage of David, the brother of the Lord, the Crucifixion, the burial and resurrection of Jesus etc. do all come from paul because according to the logic in the video these things are found in both the Gospels and Paul. I’m not sure if the argument is really convincing?
Paul being the earliest account and writer of these specific ideas. Jesus existence, death, resurrection, are throughout all the gospels. It’s about seeing particular themes, or teachings because it doesn’t seem they all believe the same things. So Paul seems to have founded some fundamental ideas that become popularized in the early church
@@Thomas-bq4edYes, as everyone knows, the first one to write about an idea is the one who founded it. Never mind what could have been communicated orally. Everyone wrote to each other in letters only, it was very efficient, as easy as texting.
@@mintmax do you know why Paul’s letters are recorded? How we even know he was writing early on in the church? How about Acts? Mark? It’s because they are being circulated in the early church, hence “popularized,” no one is arguing writing came before oral tradition, but straw man away if it makes you feel involved
A few questions: Was there a "last supper?" Did Jeshua pronounce a new covenant? Did he, moreover, link his own death to Passover? It's interesting to ponder the Pauline influence yet discerning what happened at the end of Jeshua's life remains important. I don't see repentance and faith in the salvific blood of Messiah as contradictory or competing claims per se.
Is blood the ultimate test of the listener? In the gospel of John chapter 6 Jesus clarifies what his blood symbolizes. Notice it doesn’t symbolize literal blood. It symbolizes his words. You would think that his disciples would remember this gruesome teaching at the last supper when he tells them that his blood is the covenant he’s making with them. Will they think that his literal blood cleanses them? Or will they think that the words he gave them, and cost him his life, cleanses them? What is your thought on this?
How in the world did you get that from anything I said? John chapter 6 tells us that Jesus’s blood symbolizes his words. Basically, Jesus is saying that if we follow his words, they will teach us how to live a life without sinning. His words were consistent with the Hebrew scriptures. The Hebrew scriptures require repentance and making amends when we sin. The Hebrew scriptures never required blood sacrifices for sins that were committed intentionally. Therefore, the literal blood that Jesus shed on the cross does not atone for our sins. At least, not according to Jesus. If we fail to follow his words, then, his death on the cross, his sacrifice, his blood was shed for nothing. We honor his death, and prove we love him, because we follow his teachings. I don’t follow Jesus because of any miracles he performed. I follow him because I agree with what he teaches.
@@David_Brinkerhoff93 I think you would have to know the reason for the prohibition beyond that the life is in the blood. Indeed Jesus is introducing an idea here, with an action, that is anathema to most of his audience . The idea being the absolute union of God, in the form of Jesus and man; that union being brought about by the union of our spirits John 6:63. A union so total that our existence is in Christ and He is in us. This is totally different to the symbolism of the Old Covenant where the people were separated from God by the curtain between them and the most Holy place. Union is the truth of our being, our lives are united, hence the eating and drinking. I imagine the prohibition on animal blood is to make a point about where life comes from and it is not from animal life including ourselves. It is only the life of God in us that saves us, and that life is manifested by us living in and out of the character of God of Christ and the Holy Spirit. We testify to that faith when we take communion.
John the Baptist only proclaimed Jesus as the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world . No more barbaric animal sacrifices but one who chose out of pure love to balance the karma by sacrificing himself .
@@scout2469 Genesis 4:4 (KJV) And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: Genesis 22:13 (KJV) And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind [him] a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. Genesis 15:9-10 And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon. And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not. Exodus 29:36 (KJV) And thou shalt offer every day a bullock [for] a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it. Exodus 29:38-40 (KJV) 38 Now this [is that] which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually. 39 The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the other lamb thou shalt offer at even: 40 And with the one lamb a tenth deal of flour mingled with the fourth part of an hin of beaten oil; and the fourth part of an hin of wine [for] a drink offering. Numbers 6:14 (KJV) And he shall offer his offering unto the LORD, one he lamb of the first year without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish for a sin offering, and one ram without blemish for peace offerings,
Blood and water are essential for life, so being the superstitious primates that we are. Blood and water inevitably was and will always be a part of religious mythology.
Jesus was the first lamb that replaced Isaac when Abraham almost fell into temptation and Jesus was also the last lamb to end the blood sacrifices. Because killing any living thing is considered killing life. In the God commandment telling us, " you shall not kill". True believers save by grace through the Holy Spirit (Spirit of Christ) as our seal or Redeemer. Immanuel that guide us from within
The story of Napolean and the woman and her son should open the eyes of Christians that Napolean understand what MERCY means more than Jesus and his 12 toyboys A mother once approached Napoleon seeking a pardon for her son. The emperor replied that the young man had committed a certain offense twice and justice demanded death as the penalty for his crimes. "But I don't ask for justice," the mother explained. "I plead for mercy." "But your son does not deserve mercy," Napoleon replied. "Sir," the woman cried, "If he deserved it, it wouldn't be mercy. And so I ask for mercy." "Well, then," the emperor said, "I will have mercy." And he spared the woman's son.
Exactly! If a blood sacrifice paid for all our sins then God's grace and mercy plays no role in our salvation and repentance wouldn't be required. The whole animal sacrificial system was never desired or initiated by God. It was always mans idea. God only put up with it until he instituted the new covenant and rituals of the flesh ended. God clearly stated several times he HATED "their" feast days, new moons, Sabbath's and sacrifices. He desired MERCY and repentance for sins. As John taught we are to repent unto the FORGIVENESS OF SINS.
Sounds like alchemy which is in everything. First black, then the white elixir then the red elixir . Then you go around changing people's names to "Peter" (a stone).
(Continued). As a teacher, parent, government (or God) it is a constant struggle to varying degrees To keep people near the straight and narrow. Would anyone want to make that an eternal struggle? Not even our gracious God wants that. We’ve all met people whose heart is naturally mostly good, and we wish everyone could have such a good heart. Then we can stay at level one of the progression towards sacrifices, free of the need for a law with its penalties over us-- Not because the rules themselves had become irrelevant or changed, but because everyone is already naturally keeping them. This was the hope and promise that God revealed to Israel for all people, and what Paul meant. With this context, which we’ve all experienced, it is the natural and obvious interpretation of Paul’s words that if you walk according to the spirit of the law then you are free from the written law with its penalties. If you think Paul meant that the law was changed or done away with, then you are putting Paul in opposition to his fellow apostles, Jesus himself and the all the words of God until Paul-- There is no precedent and no scripture to support the idea of doing away with the law. Indeed, where did that idea come from? Just another man hundreds of years after Paul?
If the gospels were written after most of the rest of the NT, and we see disagreements scattered in most of the letters, could it be that the gospels were written in response to some of Paul, Peter, and James disagreements? Maybe to sort of straighten out those arguments? Throw in that 1-3 John guy...was he referring to Paul who left because he never really was a part of "us"? I see lots of spiritual harassment, hate, and abuse in those guys.
What I believe is this:the salvation and the glory and the entrance into the higher realms was just as great before the crucifixion as after therefore it’s a moot point :but to gain the kingdom one must amend one’s behaviour no lying no stealing no formulation and an inner change the Holy Spirit can fill you but you have to be pure that’s why children are gods true chosen ///choices
It's obviously Mithraic. Mithra sacrificed a bull and it's blood dripped down onto the earth: "The white bull was metamorphosed into the moon; the cloak of Mithra was transformed into the vault of the sky, with the shining planets and fixed stars; from the tail of the bull and from his blood sprang the first ears of grain and the grape". Then comes the model for the Last Supper: "After the sacrifice, Mithra and the sun god banqueted together, ate meat and bread, and drank wine. Then Mithra mounted the chariot of the sun god and drove with him across the ocean, through the air to the end of the world". Jesus just did the communal meal before the sacrifice instead of after.
Cant wait to see the movie: CHRISTSPIRACY Which will be launched on the 20th March 2024 Kameron Waters and Kip Anderson made the movie It revolves around animal sacrifice
I like to think you are right, but the proprietary sacrifice is a fairly big deal, wouldn't Jame and Peter have contended with Pajul over it even moret than over other matters?
There's little evidence in support of the idea that Isaiah 53 is about a corporate group. The plain reading is that it pertains to an individual. The servants mentioned in Isaiah 42:1-7, Isaiah 44:26, and Isaiah 49:6 also sound more like individuals than a group.
@@marinarobledo348 Yir'eh zera' ('he will see [a] seed') doesn't necessarily mean having literal children at all. Zera' is used throughout Isaiah to refer to communities of people: Isaiah 1:4, 57:3, 65:23, etc. And yes, God gave him long (eternal) life after his mission on earth, as is the case with Christ. Note the mention of his being given long life (Isaiah 53:10) follows descriptions that, on the plain reading, imply his death (Isaiah 53:8-9). See also Isaiah 49:6 that explicitly distinguishes the servant from the remnant of Israel.
just a little technical question, not sure if it's my browser or setting about regions, but i can't reach the blog posts, it all responds after a try to connect with "the ip of the server can't be found" ..somebody can give advice?
God sent His son to cleanse our conscience from sin, not God's conscience of our sin. Hebrews 9:14. The blood of Christ cleaneses our heart from an evil conscience, Hebrews 10:22.
Yes, confession, repentance, forgiveness, faith and love are nuts new ideas, but what God has required of his people from the beginning. God designed human relationship success to depend on these things as well. Here is the practical logical progression to sacrifice: From the perspective of a teacher: 1. Benefit of the doubt. If my students do everything they’re supposed to do, then I don’t need to spend time telling them anything about what theyshould do, let alone start talking about penalties. 2. Words. If I find that my students are doing things that hurt other students for my purpose for the class, then I would verbally educate/clarify whatever rules are relevant, And probably periodically remind them. 3. Writing. If my students seem to keep forgetting my invisible words, then I would write the rules in a place where everyone could see them so that no one could claim ignorance or forgetfulness, and I don’t have to waste time repeatedly reminding them verbally. Note: I would assume my students were intelligent, and so first try to summarize what proper behavior is in a few abstract rules. Then if I found that they kept doing something wrong, as if they couldn’t infer an application of abstract summary rules, then on a case by case basis I would add specific laws to clarify my interpretation and intention of the summary rules. Note: There are probably an infinite number of ways to do the wrong thing in any situation. So it is impractical to list all of the rules that a person who walks the right way is actually keeping. We don’t imagine such a person is consciously thinking of all of those rules; instead, we describe them as having a natural intelligence/intuition/talent/temperament/spirit. The summary/abstract rules mentioned above try to efficiently capture that ‘spirit’ of the law. 4. Legal consequences. If students keep breaking the spirit of the law, but they can’t claim to lack knowledge of the law, then I know I need to add something that will affect their heart/motivation. Enter an incentive structure of benefits and costs, incentives and deterrents, blessings and cursings. Note: In order for penalties to work properly, a positive foundation of love and hope (and faith in these) must have already been laid (built through faithful word and action of the teacher). In this case, typically, the initial additional incentive structure is simplified to a list of costs, since the benefits were already naturally there, inherent to the purpose of the class. This is a kind of sacrificial system. The purpose of the “sacrificial system“ is to help them internalize knowledge of the truth (the reality of these rules as part of the structure to succeed) to the level of memory and belief/faith, and of fear if not also love, so It actually shapes their behavior if not also their heart. From another angle, the testimony of sacrifices, including the testimony of Jesus’ sacrifice, is that God really cares that much about the purpose and that the structure of right (and wrong) paths/behaviors/actions/choices really do lead to success at that purpose. God’s purpose is for a diversity of beings able to sustain a united community forever, and all that that implies (eg, real acts and feelings of faith, hope, love, righteousness, peace and joy. 5. Real consequences. If my students still do things that make us unable to succeed at the purpose of the class, then there is real failure, including loss of all investments of time, effort, heart and opportunity costs. Real death of the purpose (or, in other situations, of the relationship, or of people themselves).
Well from a biased theological sense. Isnt it the sprinkling of the lambs blood from Moses but put into the context that we believe Christ was God incarnate... which makes his precious blood all the more powerful?
Dr Tabor "justified by his blood" is a covenant promise, that by faith Jesus will sprinkle his blood on the Mercy Seat. I have Ytube videos 'Myths in so-called Christianity'.
thank you. is it possible to find a version of Marc that is not influenced by Paul? I heard there is one in the Vatican that is the original version of Marc.
what I want to know, is where the bleep did this UNNECESSARY violent blood need for sacrifice of sins come from, when IT WAS IN OLD TEST days? because that, THAT, is what led into this NEW BELIEF that God decided that that practice was no good, AND ONLY NOW..now did he have to send his actual "son" to die and bleed for mankind's sin? if it was necessary, why did God and Jesus wait so long to introduce the Israelites the fact that God was going to let HIS son die for their sins and wouldn't accept anymore the sacrifice of bulls and goats??? why wait so long? AND WHO MADE the rule that this "sin" had to require blood? If god is a very powerful god, why does he need blood to forgive us our sin?
Alma 42: 1 And now, my son, I perceive there is somewhat more which doth worry your mind, which ye cannot understand-which is concerning the justice of God in the punishment of the sinner; for ye do try to suppose that it is injustice that the sinner should be consigned to a state of misery. 2 Now behold, my son, I will explain this thing unto thee. For behold, after the Lord God sent our first parents forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground, from whence they were taken-yea, he drew out the man, and he placed at the east end of the garden of Eden, cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the tree of life- 3 Now, we see that the man had become as God, knowing good and evil; and lest he should put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever, the Lord God placed cherubim and the flaming sword, that he should not partake of the fruit- 4 And thus we see, that there was a time granted unto man to repent, yea, a probationary time, a time to repent and serve God. 5 For behold, if Adam had put forth his hand immediately, and partaken of the tree of life, he would have lived forever, according to the word of God, having no space for repentance; yea, and also the word of God would have been void, and the great plan of salvation would have been frustrated. 6 But behold, it was appointed unto man to die-therefore, as they were cut off from the tree of life they should be cut off from the face of the earth-and man became lost forever, yea, they became fallen man. 7 And now, ye see by this that our first parents were cut off both temporally and spiritually from the presence of the Lord; and thus we see they became subjects to follow after their own will. 8 Now behold, it was not expedient that man should be reclaimed from this temporal death, for that would destroy the great plan of happiness. 9 Therefore, as the soul could never die, and the fall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal, that is, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord, it was expedient that mankind should be reclaimed from this spiritual death. 10 Therefore, as they had become carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature, this probationary state became a state for them to prepare; it became a preparatory state. 11 And now remember, my son, if it were not for the plan of redemption, (laying it aside) as soon as they were dead their souls were miserable, being cut off from the presence of the Lord. 12 And now, there was no means to reclaim men from this fallen state, which man had brought upon himself because of his own disobedience; 13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God. 14 And thus we see that all mankind were fallen, and they were in the grasp of justice; yea, the justice of God, which consigned them forever to be cut off from his presence. 15 And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also. 16 Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul. 17 Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment? 18 Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man. 19 Now, if there was no law given-if a man murdered he should die-would he be afraid he would die if he should murder? 20 And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin. 21 And if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature? 22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the claw, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God. 23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice. 24 For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved. 25 What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God. 26 And thus God bringeth about his great and eternal purposes, which were prepared from the foundation of the world. And thus cometh about the salvation and the redemption of men, and also their destruction and misery. 27 Therefore, O my son, whosoever will come may come and partake of the waters of life freely; and whosoever will not come the same is not compelled to come; but in the last day it shall be restored unto him according to his deeds. 28 If he has desired to do evil, and has not repented in his days, behold, evil shall be done unto him, according to the restoration of God. 29 And now, my son, I desire that ye should let these things trouble you no more, and only let your sins trouble you, with that trouble which shall bring you down unto repentance. 30 O my son, I desire that ye should deny the justice of God no more. Do not endeavor to excuse yourself in the least point because of your sins, by denying the justice of God; but do you let the justice of God, and his mercy, and his long-suffering have full sway in your heart; and let it bring you down to the dust in humility.
If all the Hebrews had to do was repent of their sins and ask forgiveness, why did they all die? Is there a link between sin and death, or is that a Pauline notion? The problem is that that link is made clear throughout the Hebrew scriptures. Jesus became a sacrificial lamb to free God's people as on the day when the Israelites were set free from bondage in Egypt (yes, the same day of Jesus' death - you know the logic behind that). He became a sacrifice to cover DIRECTLY the sin of one man, Adam, but INDIRECTLY his death affected all Adam's children. This is so logical that I don't believe it can be explained away.
