1) The Bread and Wine Metaphor for Jesus’ Body and Blood
2) The Interpretation That Jesus’ Crucifixion Was Sacrificial Lamb of God, Atonement
Rationale:
1) The Torah speaks against consuming blood.
2) The Torah speaks against human sacrifice. Jesus as a sacrifice is not consumed by the Hebrew God
These major breaks with Judaism would have gotten the disciples chased out of Jerusalem in a manner of Paul leaving an angry Jerusalem for teaching a watered down version of Judaism.
As long as sacrifices were being conducted at the Temple, it would have been sacrilege to interpret Jesus’s death as sacrificial atonement. Romans 3: 25 could have been objectionable to Temple authorities. Romans 3: 25 states: God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.
The bread and wine metaphor and Jesus as a sacrifice of atonement for sin may not have been part of a public oral tradition in Jerusalem and may not have been part of a publicly circulating Q scripture.
The bread and wine as Jesus’ body and blood are found in Paul’s letter but clearly do not go back to Jesus. The central ritual of most Christian church services probably goes back to Paul who used it in his gentile churches. It isn’t credible that James and his messianic church in Jerusalem where they were in the temple daily were using this rite. James Tabor argues that when Paul said “For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you” he is referring to a revelation from the risen Jesus. This is a case where conservative Christians do not want to believe it came from Paul and so interpret the words in a familiar traditional way that glosses over “I (Paul) received from the Lord” thinking instead of the blood and wine as going back to the Jerusalem church.
The bread and wine are also another example of a clear differentiation in the 1st century between the gentile church and the Jewish messianic sect. Following Jesus or believing him to be the Messiah was done within Judaism and did not mean a break from Judaism. It was in Syria, Asia Minor and Greece that the gentile church developed different belief systems reflecting their Hellenistic pagan backgrounds which they read back into the origins of Christianity.
Some conservative churches still teach that the history of Christianity included a re-Judaization period in which Jesus’ beliefs (which they teach and believe were that of today’s conservative churches) were re-Judaized by some of his followers. Re-Judaism of Christian beliefs is actually an acknowledgement that the earliest followers of Jesus remained Jewish in every way which implies that the historical Jesus would not recognize the vast majority of the doctrines taught in his name.
So, at this critical place, the Lord’s Last Supper, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not oral traditions of the Jerusalem church? !
I wonder what Dr. Ehrman thinks about that; and, what percent of the gospels would be oral traditions of the Gentile vs. the Jerusalem church?
Along the same lines as previous threads in this section, Hebrew Scriptures strictly forbids (human) vicarious atonement (e.g. Exod 32:31-33; Num 35:33; Deut 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6; Jer 31:29 [30 in Christian Bibles]; Ezek 18:4; Ps 49:7). More specifically,Ezekiel 18:20 states: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself…” Hebrew Scripture also strictly prohibits human sacrifices (e.g. Lev 18:21, 24-25: Deut 18:10; Jer 7:31, 19:5; Ezek 23:37,39). Given these express prohibitions, Jesus’ death as an atonement and propitiation for the sins of all who believe in him and accept what he did on on their behalf simply can not be reconciled with the Hebrew Scriptures upon which Christianity is necessarily based.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)