In the Synoptic gospels, Jesus has the bread and wine metaphor for body and blood consumption.
In the Gospel of John, Jesus says it is not a metaphor, followers are literally eating his body and blood. (In the gospel of John, the last of the four gospels, Jesus brings up literal cannibalism before the last supper. Jesus brings it up and loses followers. He says this teaching is too hard for those who do not stay with him.)
Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood—I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
Lev. 17: 10
The agony in the garden happens after Jesus makes the bread and wine metaphor.
Jesus renounces the God of Israel, then he goes to the Garden and finds the God of Israel is not on his side for him to continue living.
Response:
If God turned from Jesus, that also means–metaphorically–that he did not accept Jesus’s sacrifice in the stead of the lamb. Thus, he paid for no one’s sin except his own (pride?)
My Reply:
Some real person did get crucified between two robbers [bandits who were actually Jewish Revolt rebels in 70 AD]. The three crucified men were taken down from their crosses because Josephus asked General Titus if he could do so. They were treated but only one survived. One could say he was brought back from the dead…
As for your second point, the God of Israel was through with Jesus; but, a new notion of God was in formation. This is how Jesus became God. Jesus accepted his own sacrifice.
Remember, when a person becomes atheistic towards a former notion of God, that person, himself becomes God. (Humanists who reject notions of God have no other God before their notion of God but Human Secularism, or Agnosticism, or Atheism.)
For this to have happened in 33 AD, is too soon. It’s more believable that Jesus supplanted Temple Sacrifices AFTER the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. That’s the void of the abomination of desolation (Temple desolate of sacrifices).
Steefen said
Response:If God turned from Jesus, that also means–metaphorically–that he did not accept Jesus’s sacrifice in the stead of the lamb. Thus, he paid for no one’s sin except his own (pride?)
My Reply:
Some real person did get crucified between two robbers [bandits who were actually Jewish Revolt rebels in 70 AD]. The three crucified men were taken down from their crosses because Josephus asked General Titus if he could do so. They were treated but only one survived. One could say he was brought back from the dead…
As for your second point, the God of Israel was through with Jesus; but, a new notion of God was in formation. This is how Jesus became God. Jesus accepted his own sacrifice.
Remember, when a person becomes atheistic towards a former notion of God, that person, himself becomes God. (Humanists who reject notions of God have no other God before their notion of God but Human Secularism, or Agnosticism, or Atheism.)
For this to have happened in 33 AD, is too soon. It’s more believable that Jesus supplanted Temple Sacrifices AFTER the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. That’s the void of the abomination of desolation (Temple desolate of sacrifices).
This has no basis in scripture or history. It is purely conjectural. Jesus was born in the reign of Herod the Great and died during the time of Pontius Pilot. The veil of the temple was torn to show the Jewish people that there would no longer be that barrier between God and man.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)