If Jesus died to "pay for our sins"

[Elijah John]

If Jesus' death was a sacrifice to "pay for our sins", why didn't Jesus present himself to the temple priests and say "I have come to offer myself as a sacrifice to pay for the sins of the world"?

[JehovahsWitness]

Yeah, I remember, but not sure I understood. Perhaps because I am not clear what you mean by "antitype". Clarification please.

I'm pretty sure I posted a definition/explanation of what this is. If you do not understand it then you are in no position to make a reply to the rest of the post since it is based on this premise.

JW

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 23 by JehovahsWitness]

Good answer, thoughtful and well supported. One that deserves a thoughtful rebuttal. (in the works.)

Thanks. I've done Hosea and Micah, I'm having a busy weekend but if I can later I'll do 1 Samuel 15.22. If you have any other support texts on this subject of God prohibiting sacrifices, I'd appreciate you posting them, that way I can deal with them all in the same series of posts.

Peace out,

JW

Putting the Temple legalisms and foreshadowing aside for the time being,
you did not "do Hosea", other than accuse me of cherry picking, so I will restate it here that verse here:

Hosea 6.6

I desire mercy NOT sacrifice

...note the "NOT". And note that the prophet did not say "I desire mercy AND sacrifice", nor did the prophet say "I desire mercy WITH sacrifice."

As far as Hosea is concerned in this verse, it is an "either/or" proposition.

Also, I provide a string of other verses with my commentary and observatons to support the Prophet's sentiment that YHVH PREFERS contrite heart-attitudes and not sacrifice. (post 28)

And you still have not addressed these two additonal items:

1) What does the supposed need for blood say about the nature of the Father? Other than paint Him as bloodthirsty, and not a merciful Father. If Father YHVH is merciful, he is merciful by nature and does not need external incentive in order to forgive. Mercy is intrinsic TO His nature.

Forgiveness that has to be bought with blood is legalistic, and not forgiveness at all. It seems to me that to suggest the Father needs blood in order to forgive is to suggest that mercy is foreign to His nature, and not intrinsic to His nature.

2) How does a good JW reconcile human sacrifice in light of the fact that human sacrifice is an abomination in Judaism? And we both agree that Jesus was a completely human man, and not a "god".

I know you have been busy, so this is a reminder.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 31 by JehovahsWitness]

I was waiting for your definition and I wanted to be clear on your usage, but I went ahead and looked it up, and it was as I suspected. "anti-type" is the fulfillment of the foreshadowed "type".

But because the author of Hebrews paints it as such, does not make it so. It was the Jews who instituted animal sacrifice, with no original intent that those animals were foreshadowing (type) of an eventual human sacrifice,(Jesus, anti-type)

To retroactively call those animal sacrifces a "type" to Jesus "anti-type", is revisionism that no good Jew would accept, including the historical Jesus himself, a Jew.

Especially when the Prophets were already in the process of moving beyond the obsolete sacrificial system, as demonstrated in post 28.

To try to redeem the sacrificial system by making Jesus himself a human sacrifice is an act of desperation by Paul and the author of Hebrews, in order to find meaning in the tragic death and apparent defeat of a Messiah who was supposed to have been invincible.

If folks wanted to make of Jesus a sacrificial "dying and rising god", that is their business, and akin to a form of paganism. But to attempt to tie that "sacrifice" and deification to any Jewish tradition seems ridiculous to both Jews and also to other absolute monotheists.

[bluethread]

If folks wanted to make of Jesus a sacrificial "dying and rising god", that is their business, and akin to a form of paganism. But to attempt to tie that "sacrifice" and deification to any Jewish tradition seems ridiculous to both Jews and also to other absolute monotheists.

That is no doubt the view of absolute monotheists. However, I do not think that the animal sacrifices need to be perfect analogies. Yeshua's is a different sacrifice, just as His priesthood is a different priesthood. Paul does use the animal sacrifices in standard rabbinic fashion, i.e. taking the familiar and using it as a point of entry to support one's arguments. However, the idea that the entire purpose of every sacrifice is to be a perfect analogy of Yeshua is rooted in modern typological replacement theology. This theology has been challenged by the historical, grammatical and cultural theology that rose out of archeological evidence discovered in the last 100 years. In that light, I believe that Paul is not saying Yeshua's self-sacrifice serves the same purpose as the animal sacrifices, but serves a purpose those sacrifices could not. The various sacrifices served as memorials of various types. Yeshua's sacrificial life and death embodied many of the things those sacrifices memorialized.

[Elijah John]

If folks wanted to make of Jesus a sacrificial "dying and rising god", that is their business, and akin to a form of paganism. But to attempt to tie that "sacrifice" and deification to any Jewish tradition seems ridiculous to both Jews and also to other absolute monotheists.

That is no doubt the view of absolute monotheists. However, I do not think that the animal sacrifices need to be perfect analogies. Yeshua's is a different sacrifice, just as His priesthood is a different priesthood.

That Jesus was supposedly a priest of any kind is a matter of theological attribution, not a matter of historical fact.

Even the Gospels do not cast Jesus in the role of Priest, at least not explicitly.

I believe that Paul is not saying Yeshua's self-sacrifice serves the same purpose as the animal sacrifices, but serves a purpose those sacrifices could not.

The idea or Jesus matryrdom being any kind of atoning sacrifice, is Paul's baby. But either way, animal sacrifices in general were also for the purpose of atonement for sin, and both animal and human sacrifice (Yahshua's) are distubing in their implications, that the Father needs blood in order to forgive.

The various sacrifices served as memorials of various types.

And to fill the bellies of hungry priests, not for the moral satisfaction of YHVH, who does not "drink blood". (Psalm 50.13)

Yeshua's sacrificial life and death embodied many of the things those sacrifices memorialized.

Many things can be read into the martyrdom of Yahshua, including that he died for the conviction of his beliefs, and that his martyrdom inspires people to repentance. And it is repentance that is catalyst for redemption, a theme that runs through the Hebrew Bible as well as the New Testament, independent of bloodshed, animal or human.

[myth-one.com]

The idea or Jesus matryrdom being any kind of atoning sacrifice, is Paul's baby.

And it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: (Hebrews 9:27)

Every human ever born will die.

It is appointed.

So Jesus cannot save others by sacrificing His life.

But by living a sinless human life, Jesus is not headed for the second death.

In fact, He is destined to be born again as an everlasting spiritual bodied spiritual life.

However, He will refuse to accept that everlasting spiritual bodied life which he deserves, and give to those who accept him as their Savior from the wages of their sins.

[Elijah John]

You've only demonstrated the Bible is contradictory on this matter..

Well if its "contradictory on this matter" how did you come to your conclusion of what it had to say? Did you just draw a straw? Close your eyes and sitck a pin in a list of options or just decide which take you liked most and decide anything that wasn't to your liking was "false"? (I do believe that last option is called "cherry picking").



JW

Where the Bible conlficts with itself, I always try to side with the more reasonable position.

To suppose that the Father needs blood in order to be able to forgive defies reason, imo.

That idea makes Him blend with pagan deites who must be appeased, not the God who has mercy as an innate part of His nature.

Mercy differentiates YHVH from bloodthirsty pagan deities, mercy does not require appeasement.

Tell me, what does the Father's supposed need for blood say about the Father in your view?

How does the idea that the Father needs blood in order to forgive not cast Him as tyrannical and bloodthirsty, and Jesus as super-heroic by contrast?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 36 by Elijah John]

1. YHWH was a bloodthirsty deity.

Mercy differentiates YHVH from bloodthirsty pagan deities, mercy does not require appeasement.

Tell me, what does the Father's supposed need for blood say about the Father in your view?

How does the idea that the Father needs blood in order to forgive not cast Him as tyrannical and bloodthirsty, and Jesus as super-heroic by contrast?

As a spirit he requires the spirit of animals.

That's simply a logical conclusion, not a belief. Prayer/worship may mean sacrificing chunks of your spirit or soul to him, rather than a massive sacrifice a death would suggest. Kind of the difference between hunting and farming.

Perhaps it isn't so far fetched: The transition from bloodthirsty YHWH to benign Deus and son is roughly at the same point humanity became "civilized," or living together in unprecedented masses. More people could suggest Deus levy off a larger mass, doing less damage to individuals.

Instead of eating people or animal's spirits whole, killing them, perhaps he is devouring a little bit of all of you, leaving you alive. Switching from hunting humans to domesticating you.

It would also provide good reason why bloodthirsty YHWH was replaced by Deus and JeDeus, who wants a god who devours your sons and sheep? Deus only wants bits of your soul, and not all at once, as death infers.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 37 by Willum]

"Far-fetched"?...I would call your interpretation "unconventional" at best, "creative" to be diplomatic, or "bizarre" at worst.

By the way, "Deus" did not replace YHVH in the NT. Deus is simply the Latin name for "God". The NT was written in Greek, so the word would be "Theos".

And if we want to get back to Jesus Hebrew/Aramaic roots, "YHVH" is the "Elohim" of Jesus, a Hebrew, a Jew and not a Roman, nor a Greek.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 36 by Elijah John]

1. YHWH was a bloodthirsty deity..

No pagan deity says:

I desire mercy not sacrifice (Hosea 6.6)

or this:

12 If I were hungry, I would not tell thee;
For the world is mine, and the fulness thereof.
13
Will I eat the flesh of bulls,
Or drink the blood of goats? (Psalm 50, 12-13)

(YHVH asks rhetorically.)

YHVH does say these things, according to the Bible.