atoning sacrifice

[einstein]

Did the early followers of Jesus recognize the crucifixtion as the ultimate and last sacrifice for atonement?

 

[JM]

Did the early followers of Jesus recognize the crucifixtion as the ultimate and last sacrifice for atonement?

Yes, the Bible uses the word "propitiation." [which means = an atoning sacrifice that satisfies the wrath of God on behalf of those for whom it is made.]

Hey, I'm no Einstein but I thought this quote would help: "That Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor 15:3) is the ... single most frequently used lens through which Christians in the New Testament sought to understand Jesus ... Christ dying for our sins is the starting point for all further reflection about him, such as the incarnation and the Trinity ... Atonement is the cornerstone of all theology, being the "stone that the builders rejected" which has now become the cornerstone (Matt 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; 1 Peter 2:7; quoting Paslm 118:22). The New Testament writers without exception understood the death of Christ as the fulcrum for all theology because it was the worst thing that could have happened and the best thing that could have happened... The content of theology is the power in the blood. It is the hub, made indefectibly strong by Christ's resurrection, from which all the spokes of theology derive." - Paul F.M. Zahl

 

[einstein]

No doubt this is the theology of the authors of the gospels, but my question might be better posed as follows: IF the early followers of Jesus (ie his contemporaries, rather than those like Paul and the authors of the gospels that most scholars place decades after the crucifixtion) saw him as the final sacrifice, how do you explain what transpires in Acts 21:18-ff?

 

[JM]

No doubt this is the theology of the authors of the gospels, but my question might be better posed as follows: IF the early followers of Jesus (ie his contemporaries, rather than those like Paul and the authors of the gospels that most scholars place decades after the crucifixtion) saw him as the final sacrifice, how do you explain what transpires in Acts 21:18-ff?

Ohhh, I understand, sorry for being so dense. :-D

The Nazarites, it seems, had a vow before the preaching of Paul that God did not allow them to forget. Revelation is progressive, Hebrews reads, "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." The remnants of the Old Covenant were still around until the Temple was destroyed.

The Geneva Bible notes read, "In things indifferent (of which sort the traditions of the Pharisees were not, but rather the ceremonies of the Law, until the time when Christian liberty was more fully revealed to the Jews) charity exhorts us to conform or apply ourselves willingly so far as we may, to our brethren who do not stubbornly and maliciously resist the truth (but are not thoroughly instructed), especially if the question pertains to a whole multitude."

"That is, consecrate thyself: for he does not speak here of the unclean, but of those who are subject to the vow of the Nazarites."

"That it may be known that you were not only present at the vow, but also a main participator in it: and therefore it is said afterwards that Paul declared the days of purification: for although the offerings for the Nazarites offerings were appointed, yet they might add somewhat unto them; see (Numbers 6:21)."

Peace,

jm

 

[Georges]

Did the early followers of Jesus recognize the crucifixtion as the ultimate and last sacrifice for atonement?

Who other than Paul taught it?

I mean contemporary of Paul.....not Church Fathers.

References?


JM....the temple will be rebuilt.....and sacrifices resumed....Eze 40-46.

 

[JM]

Did the early followers of Jesus recognize the crucifixtion as the ultimate and last sacrifice for atonement?

Who other than Paul taught it?

I mean contemporary of Paul.....not Church Fathers.

References?


JM....the temple will be rebuilt.....and sacrifices resumed....Eze 40-46.

Why would the temple be rebuilt? I once believed as you do, but a few things made me reconsider and I'd like to share them with you. I truly believe that what you suggest denies the sufficiency of the Blood of Christ and perverts and distorts the Atonement and makes the Blood of Christ void.

These references you listed are being fufilled in the Church:

1 Corinthians 3:15-17 "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?"

1 Corinthians 6:18-20 "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?"

2 Corinthians 6:16 "...for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."

Ephesians 2 "In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."

I mean contemporary of Paul.....not Church Fathers.

This is what's called a complicated question, you set limits so you try to force the answer you're looking for.

2Pe 3 "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things;[they preached the same Gospel] in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

I'll post more latter if I get time.

JM

 

[einstein]

The sources quoted so far, take the standard Christian position about the New Covenant replacing the Old Covenant. I believe this is a misinterpretation but that is not part of this thread. The fact remains, that according to this section of Acts, James and the Jerusalem Church prevailed on Paul to continue sacrifices at the Temple. This supports the general position that continuation of the Mosaic Law was, to them, of great import (along with ceremonies such as circumcision and temple sacrifice.) It further indicates that these individual could not have viewed the crucifixtion as the "last" and ultimate sacrifice and this theology evolved in time with the main protagonist being Paul, a non-contemporary of Jesus.

 

[einstein]

By non contemporary, I only mean someone who never actually met Jesus. Excuse my sloppy wordage. :

 

[JM]

By non contemporary, I only mean someone who never actually met Jesus. Excuse my sloppy wordage. :

Acts 9
And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. 7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. 8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.

10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. 11 And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, 12 And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. 13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: 14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. 15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: 16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.

The Holy Spirit leading Luke seems to believe Paul had a meeting with Christ in Acts 9, unless you reject Acts? 1 and 2 Peter confirm Paul's ministry unless you reject those writtings as well, in Gal. 2 Paul talks about his meeting in Acts 16 with Peter and James...

Same Gospel:
Romans 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

1 Peter 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

Same Kingdom:
Eph. 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

2 Peter 1:11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Both Commissioned:
Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

If Peter was under the law and not Grace, then why did Peter eat with the Gentiles and LIVE AS a Gentile?

 

[Georges]

Did the early followers of Jesus recognize the crucifixtion as the ultimate and last sacrifice for atonement?

Who other than Paul taught it?

I mean contemporary of Paul.....not Church Fathers.

References?


JM....the temple will be rebuilt.....and sacrifices resumed....Eze 40-46.

Why would the temple be rebuilt? I once believed as you do, but a few things made me reconsider and I'd like to share them with you. I truly believe that what you suggest denies the sufficiency of the Blood of Christ and perverts and distorts the Atonement and makes the Blood of Christ void.

JM, I issue a friendly challenge to you and all to show me where a blood sacrifices is required by God for a sin atonement in the context of the Passover Crucifixion. I submit that the Passover lamb is not a sin atonement sacrifice, it is a passover sacrifice and that is a different situation. If you think the crucifixion is an atonement sacrifice in the context of the Passover, I would like to remind you that the Passover lamb sacrifice had Torah rules and regulations surrounding it. In that context, the sacrifice of Jesus would have been illegal in terms of Torah law. JM, you have always debated with reason and temperance so I will suggest that "the sufficiency of the blood of Christ" is not an issue, as I don't believe that God required his (Jesus) blood in any kind of sin atonement. I think that can be proven....with scripture.

also,

Where is it stated that God required a human sacrifice to atone for sin?

OT reference only please....

These references you listed are being fufilled in the Church:

1 Corinthians 3:15-17 "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?"

Gnostic terminology?

1 Corinthians 6:18-20 "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?"

2 Corinthians 6:16 "...for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."

Ephesians 2 "In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."

I mean contemporary of Paul.....not Church Fathers.

This is what's called a complicated question, you set limits so you try to force the answer you're looking for.

Of course I do... :D I know that...doesn't everyone who wants to prove a point, ask questions that support their position?

2Pe 3 "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things;[they preached the same Gospel] in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

I'll post more latter if I get time.

Looking forward to it....you have interesting responses...

JM

 

[einstein]

I agree that the Paschal Lamb of Pesach was a festival, commemorative sacrifice, not a sin sacrifice. If you really analyze the Laws of Levitical Sacrifice, there are many reasons why the crucifixtion of Jesus fails. Nevertheless, this thread concerns the theme of the significance of temple sacrifice and its endorsement by no less than James, the brother of Jesus, AFTER the crucifixtion. So far no one has presented any convincing evidence that would substantiate that Jesus' earliest followers saw his death as the "last" sacrifice.

 

[Georges]

I agree that the Paschal Lamb of Pesach was a festival, commemorative sacrifice, not a sin sacrifice. If you really analyze the Laws of Levitical Sacrifice, there are many reasons why the crucifixtion of Jesus fails. Nevertheless, this thread concerns the theme of the significance of temple sacrifice and its endorsement by no less than James, the brother of Jesus, AFTER the crucifixtion. So far no one has presented any convincing evidence that would substantiate that Jesus' earliest followers saw his death as the "last" sacrifice.

I really don't think it can be done....

 

[JM]

I agree that the Paschal Lamb of Pesach was a festival, commemorative sacrifice, not a sin sacrifice. If you really analyze the Laws of Levitical Sacrifice, there are many reasons why the crucifixtion of Jesus fails. Nevertheless, this thread concerns the theme of the significance of temple sacrifice and its endorsement by no less than James, the brother of Jesus, AFTER the crucifixtion. So far no one has presented any convincing evidence that would substantiate that Jesus' earliest followers saw his death as the "last" sacrifice.

I really don't think it can be done....

Well, that dog won't hunt. :D If you don't have the complete council of God, how can you have the answers? Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Just wondering, since you guys know more about James then I do, when did James the brother of Jesus become a follower of Christ?

JM, I issue a friendly challenge to you and all to show me where a blood sacrifices is required by God for a sin atonement in the context of the Passover Crucifixion.

How are you making a connection between Passover and the Crucifixion? I understand the connection in light of progressive relevation, the letters of Paul really clear up the mess [IMO] you’re making of this topic. Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God, that takes away the sins of the world, Paul tells us the why, what, when, where, and how...the OT feasts and sacrifical system points to Christ...to try and say, "Christ only fits passover or the day of atonement" creates a false dichonomy. The system as a whole points to Christ.

I submit that the Passover lamb is not a sin atonement sacrifice, it is a passover sacrifice and that is a different situation. If you think the crucifixion is an atonement sacrifice in the context of the Passover,

You must prove the context first, please, just so I have a better understanding of your position.

I would like to remind you that the Passover lamb sacrifice had Torah rules and regulations surrounding it. In that context, the sacrifice of Jesus would have been illegal in terms of Torah law.

I’ll try to be as delicate as possible, without the Epistles of Paul, you miss the point of the Old Testament. 1Co 5:7 “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:†The old leaven is the Jewish sacrifical system, a type of Christ, Jesus Christ is the Christian Passover…there different…that’s what Paul was saying. One was a type, the other was the fulfillment of that type.

JM, you have always debated with reason and temperance so I will suggest that "the sufficiency of the blood of Christ" is not an issue, as I don't believe that God required his (Jesus) blood in any kind of sin atonement. I think that can be proven...with scripture.

You position cannot be held in light of full revelation. The Church universal has always accepted the writings of Paul, you reject them to maintain your doctrine. I think I can prove my case from the Bible as a whole.

Would you explain your position when you write, “I don’t believe that God required his (Jesus) blood in any kind of sin atonement?â€Â

also,

Where is it stated that God required a human sacrifice to atone for sin?

OT reference only please....

Only if you quote Paul and only Paul to support your position!

Gnostic terminology?

Ebonite terminology? Where does that leave us? You ignored the argument which doesn't get rid of it.

Of course I do... I know that...doesn't everyone who wants to prove a point, ask questions that support their position?

Just wondering, could you address the Scriptures I quoted, I'd like to know what you think about what Paul wrote instead of dismissing the quotations in sweeping indictments

Peace,

JM

 

[Georges]

I agree that the Paschal Lamb of Pesach was a festival, commemorative sacrifice, not a sin sacrifice. If you really analyze the Laws of Levitical Sacrifice, there are many reasons why the crucifixtion of Jesus fails. Nevertheless, this thread concerns the theme of the significance of temple sacrifice and its endorsement by no less than James, the brother of Jesus, AFTER the crucifixtion. So far no one has presented any convincing evidence that would substantiate that Jesus' earliest followers saw his death as the "last" sacrifice.

I really don't think it can be done....

Well, that dog won't hunt. :D If you don't have the complete council of God, how can you have the answers? Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

We may be at an impasse....you rely on Paul, I can't. If Paul had support of anykind (kind of the 2 witness' thing) to what he said, I would be more apt to accept him. But after studying Gnosticism and Mystery Religion and the terms and practices used by them, it seems a little coincidental that Paul uses those very terms.

JM, check this out.....notice the caption under the picture of the statue...read a little of the article....was Paul influenced any? Who knows...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attis



Just wondering, since you guys know more about James then I do, when did James the brother of Jesus become a follower of Christ?

It would have been difficult for James not to have been involved with Jesus, especially after his baptism and empowerment. In any event, he most assuredly was a member of the 70 disciples.

JM, I issue a friendly challenge to you and all to show me where a blood sacrifices is required by God for a sin atonement in the context of the Passover Crucifixion.

How are you making a connection between Passover and the Crucifixion? I understand the connection in light of progressive relevation, the letters of Paul really clear up the mess [IMO] you’re making of this topic. Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God, that takes away the sins of the world, Paul tells us the why, what, when, where, and how...the OT feasts and sacrifical system points to Christ...to try and say, "Christ only fits passover or the day of atonement" creates a false dichonomy. The system as a whole points to Christ.

yet, the Feast Days (the most important days in the Jewish religious year) are the timeline of the 1st and 2nd coming of Messiah. You are right in that they point to him....therefore he must fit the criteria of the specification for those days. Having said that, Jesus' death does not fit the criterian for a passover, or an atonement sacrifice. Just because Paul says it does, are you/people suppossed to pitch 1500 years of Judaism up to that point away? On one man's whim?

[quote:bc9d2]I submit that the Passover lamb is not a sin atonement sacrifice, it is a passover sacrifice and that is a different situation. If you think the crucifixion is an atonement sacrifice in the context of the Passover,

You must prove the context first, please, just so I have a better understanding of your position.

The context are the Feast Days and what sacrifices were associated with them...The particular order of service and sacrifice were installed for a reason...if the Passover lamb was sacrificed anciently to cause the Angel of Death to pass over the Israelite Firstborn, then Jesus' death can concievabley be seen as a stay of execution...ie. the Angel of Death passes over the Firstborn....and occurs during the spring....The Atonement occurs in the Fall.

I would like to remind you that the Passover lamb sacrifice had Torah rules and regulations surrounding it. In that context, the sacrifice of Jesus would have been illegal in terms of Torah law.

I’ll try to be as delicate as possible, without the Epistles of Paul, you miss the point of the Old Testament. 1Co 5:7 “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:†The old leaven is the Jewish sacrifical system, a type of Christ, Jesus Christ is the Christian Passover…there different…that’s what Paul was saying. One was a type, the other was the fulfillment of that type.

JM, you have always debated with reason and temperance so I will suggest that "the sufficiency of the blood of Christ" is not an issue, as I don't believe that God required his (Jesus) blood in any kind of sin atonement. I think that can be proven...with scripture.

You position cannot be held in light of full revelation. The Church universal has always accepted the writings of Paul, you reject them to maintain your doctrine. I think I can prove my case from the Bible as a whole.

Would you explain your position when you write, “I don’t believe that God required his (Jesus) blood in any kind of sin atonement?â€Â

also,

Where is it stated that God required a human sacrifice to atone for sin?

OT reference only please....

Only if you quote Paul and only Paul to support your position!

Gnostic terminology?

Ebonite terminology? Where does that leave us? You ignored the argument which doesn't get rid of it.

Of course I do... I know that...doesn't everyone who wants to prove a point, ask questions that support their position?

Just wondering, could you address the Scriptures I quoted, I'd like to know what you think about what Paul wrote instead of dismissing the quotations in sweeping indictments

Peace,

JM[/quote:bc9d2]

Could only do half....I will finish later tonight....