The Temple Sacrifices must be rendered useless because an animal: human being, sheep, cow, bird, ect. cannot share or partake of the Nature of God. Only God itself could be a sacrifice pure enough to be accepted by God.
If God was sacrificed unto God then how could any future animal sacrifice be greater than that?
God was sacrificed unto God.
God: Subject, Nominal Nominative
was sacrificed into God: Predicate
was sacrificed: past passive participle, adjective
unto God: Oblique case, Indirect object, Dative, objective genitive and subjective genitive
Comment 6
Dr. Ehrman,
You spoke with Jacob Berman about Luke. At the Last Supper, Jesus does not say this is my blood for the forgiveness/remission of sins. It’s for a new covenant. So, atonement for the sins of the world should not link us to Luke’s Gospel, that link is for Mark, Matthew, and John.
With the mention of Decius Mundus by Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.4, Decius Mus gave his life as atonement for victory over a military opponent, not because of sins. So, there can be atonement unrelated to sin.
Third, Paul through Pauline letters differs again from Luke-Acts. I wonder if Marcion caught this major discrepancy.
Luke should be dated after John, so there would be the development out of Mark, Matthew, and John’s concept of Jesus’ death being an atonement for the sins of the world?
Why was Jesus in agony and had to soldier on: since you want me to die for the sins of the world, Your will be done?
I thought Jesus understood (even in Luke), that’s why he had to suffer.
Luke, Westcott-Hort’s theory on Western non-interpolations in the gospel of Luke, and you write off atonement
as Jesus being killed as another Jewish prophet being killed?
BDEhrman
Yes, for Luke
he is the ultimate prophet
sent from God,
also rejected as the others,
with dire consequences for Jerusalem.
April 27,
Bart,
Luke, Westcott-Hort’s theory on Western non-interpolations in the gospel of Luke, and you write off atonement for sin as Jesus being killed as another Jewish prophet being killed? The second option is Jesus being killed so he can resurrect.
If Jesus’s death was not for sin atonement, was it 1) just another Jewish prophet being killed or 2) so he could resurrect?
Steefen
= = = = =
April 29
(Bart’s response)
Neither.
It was what happened to the prophets;
he was the last;
God raised him from the dead
so it would be known that he delivered the true message
and to lead people to repent
so God would forgive them.
= = = = = = =
Steefen
Sounds like 1 and 2 with you, Bart, adding:
so it would be known that he delivered the true message
and to lead people to repent
so God would forgive them.
The crucifixion and the resurrection leads people to repent?
That’s not the call to action.
I’m going to get crucified but get resurrected so you can remember Yom Kippur.
The first part of Jesus’ ministry with John the Baptist was about repent, get baptized, and prepare the way of the Lord. Now, in the second part of Jesus’ ministry, we have, in case you don’t do what we told you earlier, I have to die, get crucified, and get god to resurrect me so you can “prepare the way of the Lord and enter the Kingdom of Righteousness/Heaven on earth.”
Jesus preached Repentance as the instrument to prevent what became the result of the Jewish Roman Wars?
and Jesus had preached to Forgive others (repentance for the forgiveness of sin, Luke 24:47)
Repent&Baptize was the Time Aspect of Forgiveness before the Crucifixion&Resurrection.
After the Crucifixion&Resurrection the Repentance&Baptism program no longer applies to having Forgiveness.
The error of biblical interpretations throughout history afterwards was to merge that Time Aspect of Before and After into one program where there is not a Time Aspect relative to Forgiveness.
Repentance&Baptism is a public display of having believed in the Crucifixion&Resurrection, however before they had even believed they had already been forgiven.
to FOR or to AND,
Luke 24:47
The Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (I looked at it Online today) both have the preposition εις instead of the conjunction και.
So that perhaps is the reason why some English texts (NA28 ISBN 978 1 4335 3031 9) will have “repentence for forgiveness of sins.”
The Atonement Fraud is one or the other: for or and.
Since those two texts are esteemed as being the best and earliest Greek texts some English translations have updated the translation away from the 1611 English Authorized Version ISBN 978 1 4243 2344 9.
Textus Receptus Koine Greek of 1611 English Authorized Version η καινη διαθηκη ISBN 978 1 86228 537 8
and the Katharevousa Greek καθαρενουσα τα ιερα γραμματα ISBN 978 1 86228 119 6 both have the conjunction και, χαι which translates the phrase as “repentence and forgiveness. The 1560 English Geneva ISBN 1 4243 0567 5 also used the word “and”. The 1599 English Geneva 978 0 578 84287 5 also has the word “and”.
So all the earliest English translations and facsimiles I have in my hands all have the word “and” Luke 24:47.
Why should I believe that The Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are really as old as esteemed to be?
I don’t believe it and that’s why I stick with the 1611 English Authorized Version as being the best possible option available for me to read.
to AND,
Approach the Greek like a Classicist🧐.
Repentance for/and Forgiveness of Sins is a Axiom derived from the Exodus story.
Repentence: to turn away from Bondage
preposition:εις into
Forgiveness: Freedom, a release from Bondage, the opposite of the character of Pharaoh. The word is derived from the greek word for Pharoah. Pharaoh had put the Israelites into Bondage.
Turn away from Bondage and walk into Freedom. And now the Repentance causes the Freedom.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
2 Guest(s)