Isaiah 53, the forbidden chapter of the Hebrew Bible

[Meriweather]

First of all, a sacrifice is offered by a 'lower' being to a higher force. That is how things worked (and works now, I assume).

Except of that, a sacrifice is the last step, before which there should be sincere repentance of sins. Without it, the sacrifice doesn't make sense.

No argument here.

 

[ESay]

First of all, a sacrifice is offered by a 'lower' being to a higher force. That is how things worked (and works now, I assume).

Except of that, a sacrifice is the last step, before which there should be sincere repentance of sins. Without it, the sacrifice doesn't make sense.

No argument here.

'No argument' means that you agree, or on the contrary - you mean there wasn't the point there?

 

[Meriweather]

Also, in the case of Christ there was a human sacrifice. One may say all they want about a 'lamb's, but this doesn't change the fact. If I remember correctly, God in the OT clearly condemns this.

Now here you have what I call a "Cliff Notes" version of Jesus' work on the cross. Let's take a deeper look at the life and times Jesus lived. The Romans were crushing the Jewish nation into a poverty stricken existence. They were taking their land, making serfs of the former owners, and demanding taxes. The Temple was also asking for its tithes and sacrifices. It was a very hard time for the average Jew, unbearably so for the poor. What to do? Feed their family or follow Jewish law about Temple donations and sacrifice?

Along comes Jesus reminding the poor of Old Testament teachings: God forgives. Sins are forgiven. Repentance for the forgiveness of sins. In other words, Temple donations and sacrifices are not needed for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus said (considering the times) the Temple should not be laying further burdens upon the poor. At the time, the Temple was being led by Annas and Caiaphas, who were far from being the epitome of the ideal Jew or any type of leader showing loyalty to their own people.

The Annas-Caiaphas faction demanded a sign that Jesus' teaching of repentance for the forgiveness of sin was in fact from God, that it was in fact a covenant between God and His people. If Jesus could not provide a sign of this, then he should cease and desist in this teaching that sins ARE forgiven (not will be forgiven upon his death). Covenants were often sealed by blood, and this was indeed a sign of this New Covenant/Testament. Even more so, was the sign of the Resurrection.

I have the impression that you, too, believe sins ARE forgiven. I am guessing you can point out that sins ARE forgiven even when Temple sacrifice cannot be performed.

Jesus was never fighting against the Jewish faith. He was fighting Annas and Caiaphas and their perspective (influenced by Temple wealth and power) of how to use the faithful Jews.

 

[Meriweather]

'No argument' means that you agree, or on the contrary - you mean there wasn't the point there?

Wasn't the point that repentance (turning away from sin and toward obedience to God) begins long before the symbolic sacrifice? Without the change in attitude and action, what good is a sacrifice?

 

[ESay]

Also, in the case of Christ there was a human sacrifice. One may say all they want about a 'lamb's, but this doesn't change the fact. If I remember correctly, God in the OT clearly condemns this.

Now here you have what I call a "Cliff Notes" version of Jesus' work on the cross. Let's take a deeper look at the life and times Jesus lived. The Romans were crushing the Jewish nation into a poverty stricken existence. They were taking their land, making serfs of the former owners, and demanding taxes. The Temple was also asking for its tithes and sacrifices. It was a very hard time for the average Jew, unbearably so for the poor. What to do? Feed their family or follow Jewish law about Temple donations and sacrifice?

Along comes Jesus reminding the poor of Old Testament teachings: God forgives. Sins are forgiven. Repentance for the forgiveness of sins. In other words, Temple donations and sacrifices are not needed for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus said (considering the times) the Temple should not be laying further burdens upon the poor. At the time, the Temple was being led by Annas and Caiaphas, who were far from being the epitome of the ideal Jew or any type of leader showing loyalty to their own people.

The Annas-Caiaphas faction demanded a sign that Jesus' teaching of repentance for the forgiveness of sin was in fact from God, that it was in fact a covenant between God and His people. If Jesus could not provide a sign of this, then he should cease and desist in this teaching that sins ARE forgiven (not will be forgiven upon his death). Covenants were often sealed by blood, and this was indeed a sign of this New Covenant/Testament. Even more so, was the sign of the Resurrection.

I have the impression that you, too, believe sins ARE forgiven. I am guessing you can point out that sins ARE forgiven even when Temple sacrifice cannot be performed.

Jesus was never fighting against the Jewish faith. He was fighting Annas and Caiaphas and their perspective (influenced by Temple wealth and power) of how to use the faithful Jews.

Of course sins are forgiven even without sacrifices. A sacrifice is only an 'outward' sign of the changes happened in a human's mind.

 

[ESay]

'No argument' means that you agree, or on the contrary - you mean there wasn't the point there?

Wasn't the point that repentance (turning away from sin and toward obedience to God) begins long before the symbolic sacrifice? Without the change in attitude and action, what good is a sacrifice?

Yes, that was the point.

 

[norwegen]

So, what was the meaning of blood sacrifice, in principle?

An animal sacrifice as a sin offering was symbolic of a person or a people offering to God their animal desires so that this part of person-hood might be transformed into the more spiritual of conforming to and being able to apply obedience to the will of God within our own spirits and then into our own lives. Blood covenants between two parties is the sign they are bound to each other.

First of all, a sacrifice is offered by a 'lower' being to a higher force. That is how things worked (and works now, I assume).

Except of that, a sacrifice is the last step, before which there should be sincere repentance of sins. Without it, the sacrifice doesn't make sense.

Also, in the case of Christ there was a human sacrifice. One may say all they want about a 'lamb's, but this doesn't change the fact. If I remember correctly, God in the OT clearly condemns this.

The Israelites' lot was to worship the idols of their masters, to adopt foreign ways of life and, by all appearances, to practice a polytheism that closely resembled that of their captors with its ritual cleansing and animal sacrifices, and even to practice what should otherwise have been to their utter horror, human sacrifices (2 Kgs 17:16-18; Jer 19:5; 32:35; Ez 20:25-26). For the better part of their history, they had abandoned their one God, their tree of life; a people long dead, their bones had dried up (Ez 37:11).

These dead people were not dead corporeally; though dead, they continued to live their lives in Palestine.

They were dead in spirit; they had no God (so to speak). That's the underlying theme in the holy peoples' entire biblical narrative. That's why God cursed Jesus; Jesus bore the curse of Adam. His cry of dereliction on the Cross was because God forsook him there. God did not forsake him while he roamed the earth in the flesh. His real sacrifice was his alienation from the Father.

 

[Meriweather]

His cry of dereliction on the Cross was because God forsook him there.

Psalm 22. Consider why it was a comfort, not a desolation to Jesus, how it helped him through his ordeal. Here are the final lines:

The generation to come will be told of the Lord,
that they may proclaim to a people yet unborn
the deliverance you have brought.

 

[norwegen]

His cry of dereliction on the Cross was because God forsook him there.

Psalm 22. Consider why it was a comfort, not a desolation to Jesus, how it helped him through his ordeal. Here are the final lines:

The generation to come will be told of the Lord,
that they may proclaim to a people yet unborn
the deliverance you have brought.

Psalm 22 is not about comfort coming to Jesus; it's about comfort coming to David. The coming generation to David wasn't Jesus' generation.

 

[ESay]

So, what was the meaning of blood sacrifice, in principle?

An animal sacrifice as a sin offering was symbolic of a person or a people offering to God their animal desires so that this part of person-hood might be transformed into the more spiritual of conforming to and being able to apply obedience to the will of God within our own spirits and then into our own lives. Blood covenants between two parties is the sign they are bound to each other.

First of all, a sacrifice is offered by a 'lower' being to a higher force. That is how things worked (and works now, I assume).

Except of that, a sacrifice is the last step, before which there should be sincere repentance of sins. Without it, the sacrifice doesn't make sense.

Also, in the case of Christ there was a human sacrifice. One may say all they want about a 'lamb's, but this doesn't change the fact. If I remember correctly, God in the OT clearly condemns this.

The Israelites' lot was to worship the idols of their masters, to adopt foreign ways of life and, by all appearances, to practice a polytheism that closely resembled that of their captors with its ritual cleansing and animal sacrifices, and even to practice what should otherwise have been to their utter horror, human sacrifices (2 Kgs 17:16-18; Jer 19:5; 32:35; Ez 20:25-26). For the better part of their history, they had abandoned their one God, their tree of life; a people long dead, their bones had dried up (Ez 37:11).

These dead people were not dead corporeally; though dead, they continued to live their lives in Palestine.

They were dead in spirit; they had no God (so to speak). That's the underlying theme in the holy peoples' entire biblical narrative. That's why God cursed Jesus; Jesus bore the curse of Adam. His cry of dereliction on the Cross was because God forsook him there. God did not forsake him while he roamed the earth in the flesh. His real sacrifice was his alienation from the Father.

I am not arguing that the Jews were ideal people. On the contrary, for the most part they completely failed God's demands.

We were talking about sacrifices. And my point was that the sacrifice of Jesus doesn't make sense.

 

[Meriweather]

Psalm 22 is not about comfort coming to Jesus; it's about comfort coming to David. The coming generation to David wasn't Jesus' generation.

First, I did not say it was a comfort coming from Jesus, though of course he could be reminding those at the foot of the cross of this Psalm and how it ended. However, I said I could see why Jesus found it comforting to himself.

Would you say that the Star Spangled Banner is not an inspiration to Americans today because it was the thoughts coming from Francis Scott Key a couple hundred years ago?

 

[norwegen]

So, what was the meaning of blood sacrifice, in principle?

An animal sacrifice as a sin offering was symbolic of a person or a people offering to God their animal desires so that this part of person-hood might be transformed into the more spiritual of conforming to and being able to apply obedience to the will of God within our own spirits and then into our own lives. Blood covenants between two parties is the sign they are bound to each other.

First of all, a sacrifice is offered by a 'lower' being to a higher force. That is how things worked (and works now, I assume).

Except of that, a sacrifice is the last step, before which there should be sincere repentance of sins. Without it, the sacrifice doesn't make sense.

Also, in the case of Christ there was a human sacrifice. One may say all they want about a 'lamb's, but this doesn't change the fact. If I remember correctly, God in the OT clearly condemns this.

The Israelites' lot was to worship the idols of their masters, to adopt foreign ways of life and, by all appearances, to practice a polytheism that closely resembled that of their captors with its ritual cleansing and animal sacrifices, and even to practice what should otherwise have been to their utter horror, human sacrifices (2 Kgs 17:16-18; Jer 19:5; 32:35; Ez 20:25-26). For the better part of their history, they had abandoned their one God, their tree of life; a people long dead, their bones had dried up (Ez 37:11).

These dead people were not dead corporeally; though dead, they continued to live their lives in Palestine.

They were dead in spirit; they had no God (so to speak). That's the underlying theme in the holy peoples' entire biblical narrative. That's why God cursed Jesus; Jesus bore the curse of Adam. His cry of dereliction on the Cross was because God forsook him there. God did not forsake him while he roamed the earth in the flesh. His real sacrifice was his alienation from the Father.

I am not arguing that the Jews were ideal people. On the contrary, for the most part they completely failed God's demands.

We were talking about sacrifices. And my point was that the sacrifice of Jesus doesn't make sense.

Sacrifices is what I'm talking about. The sacrifice was a spiritual sacrifice, not a blood sacrifice. The alienation from God is kind of easy to comprehend; it all happens on the Cross.

The blood sacrifice, on the other hand, is a tough nut to crack, to be sure. I agree. If Jesus was considered a lamb, then it must be reminiscent of sacrifice under the Law. He did say, after all, that not a dot of the Law would pass until heaven passed.

 

[ESay]

So, what was the meaning of blood sacrifice, in principle?

An animal sacrifice as a sin offering was symbolic of a person or a people offering to God their animal desires so that this part of person-hood might be transformed into the more spiritual of conforming to and being able to apply obedience to the will of God within our own spirits and then into our own lives. Blood covenants between two parties is the sign they are bound to each other.

First of all, a sacrifice is offered by a 'lower' being to a higher force. That is how things worked (and works now, I assume).

Except of that, a sacrifice is the last step, before which there should be sincere repentance of sins. Without it, the sacrifice doesn't make sense.

Also, in the case of Christ there was a human sacrifice. One may say all they want about a 'lamb's, but this doesn't change the fact. If I remember correctly, God in the OT clearly condemns this.

The Israelites' lot was to worship the idols of their masters, to adopt foreign ways of life and, by all appearances, to practice a polytheism that closely resembled that of their captors with its ritual cleansing and animal sacrifices, and even to practice what should otherwise have been to their utter horror, human sacrifices (2 Kgs 17:16-18; Jer 19:5; 32:35; Ez 20:25-26). For the better part of their history, they had abandoned their one God, their tree of life; a people long dead, their bones had dried up (Ez 37:11).

These dead people were not dead corporeally; though dead, they continued to live their lives in Palestine.

They were dead in spirit; they had no God (so to speak). That's the underlying theme in the holy peoples' entire biblical narrative. That's why God cursed Jesus; Jesus bore the curse of Adam. His cry of dereliction on the Cross was because God forsook him there. God did not forsake him while he roamed the earth in the flesh. His real sacrifice was his alienation from the Father.

I am not arguing that the Jews were ideal people. On the contrary, for the most part they completely failed God's demands.

We were talking about sacrifices. And my point was that the sacrifice of Jesus doesn't make sense.

Sacrifices is what I'm talking about. The sacrifice was a spiritual sacrifice, not a blood sacrifice. The alienation from God is kind of easy to comprehend; it all happens on the Cross.

The blood sacrifice, on the other hand, is a tough nut to crack, to be sure. I agree. If Jesus was considered a lamb, then it must be reminiscent of sacrifice under the Law. He did say, after all, that not dot of the Law would pass until heaven passed.

Under the Law, he shouldn't have been sacrificed, in the first place.

 

[norwegen]

Psalm 22 is not about comfort coming to Jesus; it's about comfort coming to David. The coming generation to David wasn't Jesus' generation.

First, I did not say it was a comfort coming from Jesus, though of course he could be reminding those at the foot of the cross of this Psalm and how it ended. However, I said I could see why Jesus found it comforting to himself.

Would you say that the Star Spangled Banner is not an inspiration to Americans today because it was the thoughts coming from Francis Scott Key a couple hundred years ago?

But being a curse wasn't a comfort to Jesus. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" is not a cry of comfort; it's a cry of despair.

Of course, moments later he is comforted when he is resurrected. “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” he proclaimed as he drew his last breath (Lk 23:46).

No longer fully human - no longer a man without God, a man completely subject to the natural law, the law of sin and death, the "elementary principles of the world," as he was in that moment - he is raised to life again and goes to be not merely with God but with the Father.

Sacrifice involves pain, not comfort.

 

[norwegen]

So, what was the meaning of blood sacrifice, in principle?

An animal sacrifice as a sin offering was symbolic of a person or a people offering to God their animal desires so that this part of person-hood might be transformed into the more spiritual of conforming to and being able to apply obedience to the will of God within our own spirits and then into our own lives. Blood covenants between two parties is the sign they are bound to each other.

First of all, a sacrifice is offered by a 'lower' being to a higher force. That is how things worked (and works now, I assume).

Except of that, a sacrifice is the last step, before which there should be sincere repentance of sins. Without it, the sacrifice doesn't make sense.

Also, in the case of Christ there was a human sacrifice. One may say all they want about a 'lamb's, but this doesn't change the fact. If I remember correctly, God in the OT clearly condemns this.

The Israelites' lot was to worship the idols of their masters, to adopt foreign ways of life and, by all appearances, to practice a polytheism that closely resembled that of their captors with its ritual cleansing and animal sacrifices, and even to practice what should otherwise have been to their utter horror, human sacrifices (2 Kgs 17:16-18; Jer 19:5; 32:35; Ez 20:25-26). For the better part of their history, they had abandoned their one God, their tree of life; a people long dead, their bones had dried up (Ez 37:11).

These dead people were not dead corporeally; though dead, they continued to live their lives in Palestine.

They were dead in spirit; they had no God (so to speak). That's the underlying theme in the holy peoples' entire biblical narrative. That's why God cursed Jesus; Jesus bore the curse of Adam. His cry of dereliction on the Cross was because God forsook him there. God did not forsake him while he roamed the earth in the flesh. His real sacrifice was his alienation from the Father.

I am not arguing that the Jews were ideal people. On the contrary, for the most part they completely failed God's demands.

We were talking about sacrifices. And my point was that the sacrifice of Jesus doesn't make sense.

Sacrifices is what I'm talking about. The sacrifice was a spiritual sacrifice, not a blood sacrifice. The alienation from God is kind of easy to comprehend; it all happens on the Cross.

The blood sacrifice, on the other hand, is a tough nut to crack, to be sure. I agree. If Jesus was considered a lamb, then it must be reminiscent of sacrifice under the Law. He did say, after all, that not dot of the Law would pass until heaven passed.

Under the Law, he shouldn't have been sacrificed, in the first place.

Under the Law, lambs could be sacrificed.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

It is amazing how so called Christians bring up this passage to support the narrative about Jesus, but at the same time completely ignore 11th and 12th paragraphs which completely refute the absurd idea of Jesus' divinity.

This is referring to His RETURN at the beginning of the Millennium. He had to first come and die, so that you might live

 

[ESay]

So, what was the meaning of blood sacrifice, in principle?

An animal sacrifice as a sin offering was symbolic of a person or a people offering to God their animal desires so that this part of person-hood might be transformed into the more spiritual of conforming to and being able to apply obedience to the will of God within our own spirits and then into our own lives. Blood covenants between two parties is the sign they are bound to each other.

First of all, a sacrifice is offered by a 'lower' being to a higher force. That is how things worked (and works now, I assume).

Except of that, a sacrifice is the last step, before which there should be sincere repentance of sins. Without it, the sacrifice doesn't make sense.

Also, in the case of Christ there was a human sacrifice. One may say all they want about a 'lamb's, but this doesn't change the fact. If I remember correctly, God in the OT clearly condemns this.

The Israelites' lot was to worship the idols of their masters, to adopt foreign ways of life and, by all appearances, to practice a polytheism that closely resembled that of their captors with its ritual cleansing and animal sacrifices, and even to practice what should otherwise have been to their utter horror, human sacrifices (2 Kgs 17:16-18; Jer 19:5; 32:35; Ez 20:25-26). For the better part of their history, they had abandoned their one God, their tree of life; a people long dead, their bones had dried up (Ez 37:11).

These dead people were not dead corporeally; though dead, they continued to live their lives in Palestine.

They were dead in spirit; they had no God (so to speak). That's the underlying theme in the holy peoples' entire biblical narrative. That's why God cursed Jesus; Jesus bore the curse of Adam. His cry of dereliction on the Cross was because God forsook him there. God did not forsake him while he roamed the earth in the flesh. His real sacrifice was his alienation from the Father.

I am not arguing that the Jews were ideal people. On the contrary, for the most part they completely failed God's demands.

We were talking about sacrifices. And my point was that the sacrifice of Jesus doesn't make sense.

Sacrifices is what I'm talking about. The sacrifice was a spiritual sacrifice, not a blood sacrifice. The alienation from God is kind of easy to comprehend; it all happens on the Cross.

The blood sacrifice, on the other hand, is a tough nut to crack, to be sure. I agree. If Jesus was considered a lamb, then it must be reminiscent of sacrifice under the Law. He did say, after all, that not dot of the Law would pass until heaven passed.

Under the Law, he shouldn't have been sacrificed, in the first place.

Under the Law, lambs could be sacrificed.

The lambs are supposed to have four legs, I am afraid.

 

[norwegen]

So, what was the meaning of blood sacrifice, in principle?

An animal sacrifice as a sin offering was symbolic of a person or a people offering to God their animal desires so that this part of person-hood might be transformed into the more spiritual of conforming to and being able to apply obedience to the will of God within our own spirits and then into our own lives. Blood covenants between two parties is the sign they are bound to each other.

First of all, a sacrifice is offered by a 'lower' being to a higher force. That is how things worked (and works now, I assume).

Except of that, a sacrifice is the last step, before which there should be sincere repentance of sins. Without it, the sacrifice doesn't make sense.

Also, in the case of Christ there was a human sacrifice. One may say all they want about a 'lamb's, but this doesn't change the fact. If I remember correctly, God in the OT clearly condemns this.

The Israelites' lot was to worship the idols of their masters, to adopt foreign ways of life and, by all appearances, to practice a polytheism that closely resembled that of their captors with its ritual cleansing and animal sacrifices, and even to practice what should otherwise have been to their utter horror, human sacrifices (2 Kgs 17:16-18; Jer 19:5; 32:35; Ez 20:25-26). For the better part of their history, they had abandoned their one God, their tree of life; a people long dead, their bones had dried up (Ez 37:11).

These dead people were not dead corporeally; though dead, they continued to live their lives in Palestine.

They were dead in spirit; they had no God (so to speak). That's the underlying theme in the holy peoples' entire biblical narrative. That's why God cursed Jesus; Jesus bore the curse of Adam. His cry of dereliction on the Cross was because God forsook him there. God did not forsake him while he roamed the earth in the flesh. His real sacrifice was his alienation from the Father.

I am not arguing that the Jews were ideal people. On the contrary, for the most part they completely failed God's demands.

We were talking about sacrifices. And my point was that the sacrifice of Jesus doesn't make sense.

Sacrifices is what I'm talking about. The sacrifice was a spiritual sacrifice, not a blood sacrifice. The alienation from God is kind of easy to comprehend; it all happens on the Cross.

The blood sacrifice, on the other hand, is a tough nut to crack, to be sure. I agree. If Jesus was considered a lamb, then it must be reminiscent of sacrifice under the Law. He did say, after all, that not dot of the Law would pass until heaven passed.

Under the Law, he shouldn't have been sacrificed, in the first place.

Under the Law, lambs could be sacrificed.

The lambs are supposed to have four legs, I am afraid.

Yup.

One lamb had two.

 

[ESay]

It is amazing how so called Christians bring up this passage to support the narrative about Jesus, but at the same time completely ignore 11th and 12th paragraphs which completely refute the absurd idea of Jesus' divinity.

This is referring to His RETURN at the beginning of the Millennium. He had to first come and die, so that you might live

Maybe, but the verses contradict the Christian notion about Jesus' divinity.

 

[ESay]

So, what was the meaning of blood sacrifice, in principle?

An animal sacrifice as a sin offering was symbolic of a person or a people offering to God their animal desires so that this part of person-hood might be transformed into the more spiritual of conforming to and being able to apply obedience to the will of God within our own spirits and then into our own lives. Blood covenants between two parties is the sign they are bound to each other.

First of all, a sacrifice is offered by a 'lower' being to a higher force. That is how things worked (and works now, I assume).

Except of that, a sacrifice is the last step, before which there should be sincere repentance of sins. Without it, the sacrifice doesn't make sense.

Also, in the case of Christ there was a human sacrifice. One may say all they want about a 'lamb's, but this doesn't change the fact. If I remember correctly, God in the OT clearly condemns this.

The Israelites' lot was to worship the idols of their masters, to adopt foreign ways of life and, by all appearances, to practice a polytheism that closely resembled that of their captors with its ritual cleansing and animal sacrifices, and even to practice what should otherwise have been to their utter horror, human sacrifices (2 Kgs 17:16-18; Jer 19:5; 32:35; Ez 20:25-26). For the better part of their history, they had abandoned their one God, their tree of life; a people long dead, their bones had dried up (Ez 37:11).

These dead people were not dead corporeally; though dead, they continued to live their lives in Palestine.

They were dead in spirit; they had no God (so to speak). That's the underlying theme in the holy peoples' entire biblical narrative. That's why God cursed Jesus; Jesus bore the curse of Adam. His cry of dereliction on the Cross was because God forsook him there. God did not forsake him while he roamed the earth in the flesh. His real sacrifice was his alienation from the Father.

I am not arguing that the Jews were ideal people. On the contrary, for the most part they completely failed God's demands.

We were talking about sacrifices. And my point was that the sacrifice of Jesus doesn't make sense.

Sacrifices is what I'm talking about. The sacrifice was a spiritual sacrifice, not a blood sacrifice. The alienation from God is kind of easy to comprehend; it all happens on the Cross.

The blood sacrifice, on the other hand, is a tough nut to crack, to be sure. I agree. If Jesus was considered a lamb, then it must be reminiscent of sacrifice under the Law. He did say, after all, that not dot of the Law would pass until heaven passed.

Under the Law, he shouldn't have been sacrificed, in the first place.

Under the Law, lambs could be sacrificed.

The lambs are supposed to have four legs, I am afraid.

Yup.

One lamb had two.

Then, it was a wrong lamb.