I found Bart through researching what Judaism actually taught from Rabbis in Judaism and not just what I was taught in church (pretty much the same background and learning track as Bart except I wasn’t the college type. I went for music.) about what the Old Testament taught. I was going to start going to a Messianic church to learn but I have a friend that teaches at Princeton tell me to go learn from Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism. Odd that, since he’s a real Episcopalian and we went to a non-denom (Vineyard Christian Fellowship) together in Portland, OR back in the early 2000s.
So I found Rabbi Michael Skobac and Jews for Judaism and have been watching their lectures. I figure if I want to learn, learn from Jews that know the NT to convert Jews back.
So that reference just so someone that is familiar, will understand better where I’m asking from.
One of the things he says is that in the Torah there were other sacrifices that didn’t require blood to atone for sin so why do Christians get the teaching that blood must be shed? Historically, where did that start entering the text?
To me it makes a difference between having to theological make the Messiah divine or not. From the way I’ve always figured it is that if I just treat people the way Jesus said to I was in. No prayer required to be repeated.
Sorry if this crosses the theology/historical line.
Christians have traditionally interpreted the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis as the origin of human sin.
It’s a Christian theological interpretation since God already punishes Adam with the hardship in farming and Eve with pain in childbirth, and both with mortality. Nowhere is hinted that there is a permanent mark which is born with a child aside from his very humanity.
Atonement, on the other hand, involves the sacrifice of an “innocent” animal. Through shedding its blood God would pardon the sins of the person who offered the sacrifice.
I am confident that for Jews, sin would be not following the mosaic laws, for instance. There is nothing metaphysical in that.
So, God’s approval would be bought through the blood of some inferior being who happen to bleat nearby.
Those who were not people of faith would not sacrifice, and therefore would not have their sins pardoned, and thus be despised by God.
Christian theologians presuppose that God never intended this sacrificial system to be an end in itself, or to be exclusive. Atonement, for them was only a temporary covering of sin in the waiting for the Christ.
Today, in light of the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ, sinners who humbly by faith receive Him and His sacrifice into their hearts and lives are forgiven by God of all their sins.
Does it make any sense to be covered for something that did not happen in the first place?
I guess Christians are really happy to indulge in such frivolities.
But Jews, of course, are NOT for this cultural appropriation of their holy scriptures.
Truxton,
If Jesus’ mission was truly about the forgiveness of sins, he would have had his big moment on the stage at Yom Kippur, not Passover.
Jesus’ mission was about announcing what he thought would be the Apocalypse: 1) Tribulation followed by 2) the manifesting of the Kingdom of God ruled by the Son of Man/Son of Earth/Gaius — and of course Gaius was Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar. The Caesar that followed the Tribulation of the Jewish Revolt was Emperor Vespasian. Jesus was a voice for the imperial cults of the Roman Empire: Roman propaganda.
– Argumentation Specialist
Steefen said
Truxton,If Jesus’ mission was truly about the forgiveness of sins, he would have had his big moment on the stage at Yom Kippur, not Passover.
Jesus’ mission was about announcing what he thought would be the Apocalypse: 1) Tribulation followed by 2) the manifesting of the Kingdom of God ruled by the Son of Man/Son of Earth/Gaius — and of course Gaius was Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar. The Caesar that followed the Tribulation of the Jewish Revolt was Emperor Vespasian. Jesus was a voice for the imperial cults of the Roman Empire: Roman propaganda.
– Argumentation Specialist
Son of Man > Son of female Gaia > son turns Gaia masculine: Gaius > Gaius was Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar …
Steefen said
Truxton,If Jesus’ mission was truly about the forgiveness of sins, he would have had his big moment on the stage at Yom Kippur, not Passover.
Jesus’ mission was about announcing what he thought would be the Apocalypse: 1) Tribulation followed by 2) the manifesting of the Kingdom of God ruled by the Son of Man/Son of Earth/Gaius — and of course Gaius was Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar. The Caesar that followed the Tribulation of the Jewish Revolt was Emperor Vespasian. Jesus was a voice for the imperial cults of the Roman Empire: Roman propaganda.
– Argumentation Specialist
That’s what I’m finding. It’s hard asking questions between what I’m learning from rabbis that are former Christians trying to counteract Christian missionaries, theologically, but they do bring in the historical aspect too. I would love to see a conversation between Bart and some of these guys. It wouldn’t be a debate per se, but I know they’d fill in some blanks for us out here trying to learn history after being so theologically immersed in it.
After listening to them explain the Tanakh and how many of the “messianic” prophecies pointing to Jesus aren’t that historically at all and mistranslations and stretches by the NT authors later.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)