In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"
The true failure of the Greek writers rests in their misunderstanding of the Hebrew sacrificial system, leading to a convoluted combination of the Jewish scriptures with their Hellenistic theological background of God incarnate and human sacrifice:
-Jesus wasnt perfect, unblemished as required for an offering Lev1:3,4:3,22:18-25,Deut17:1. He was beaten, scourged before his sacrifice Matt26:67,27:26,30-31,Mk14:65,15:15-20,Lk22:63,Jn18:22,19:1,3. How could God accept an offering that was beaten and humiliated, most of all "offered" by pagans. Animals do not sin. When the HB speaks of an animal without blemish, it is from a physical aspect, not metaphorical, ie sin blemishes. Also Jesus was circumcised, which is according to the NT itself, a mutilation Phil3:2,Gal5:12 (where did the foreskin of the everlasting God go to by the way?). Paul's priority was gentile, and more particularily Greek and Helenized people's conversions, hence that depiction of circumcision. The Greeks abhorred, and eventually outlawed it, which helped cause the Bar Kokhba revolt. Some Jews fearing persecution began calling for the removal of only a part of the prepuce, and some Hellenized Jews attempted to look uncircumcised by stretching the extant parts of their foreskins.
Continuing with what constitutes a valid offering in Jewish law, in case of mammal offerings (bulls, lambs, etc.) the offering must be less than one year old, having cloven hooves and chew cud and death must be caused by a sharp, perfect blade cutting across the neck, resulting in blood loss and swift death. Lev4:27-29 also states that, logically, sin offering must be brought forth by the person seeking atonement, and slaughtered either by the sinner or by the (Aaronic) priest. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah. All sacrifices, logicaly are offered by man to God, and never the other way around, by God to man. It is mankind that needs sacrifices to understand the value of life, giving up something of value for the betterment of our spiritual selves.
That is the essence of why sacrifices were instituted, not to appease a vengeful deity whose anger towards His creatures' sins can only be abated with blood. A physically blemished animal isnt difficult for its owner to sacrifice, because it has lost its value to the farmer, becoming among his least valuable assets. God points that reality to the half-hearted priests who offered their worthless animals in sacrifice
Mal1:8-14"When you offer a blind [animal] for a sacrifice, is there nothing wrong? And when you offer a lame or a sick one, is there nothing wrong? Were you to offer it to your governor, would he accept you or would he favor you? says the Lord of Hosts..And you brought that which was taken by violence, and the lame and the sick. And you bring an offering-will I accept it from your hand? says the Lord. And cursed is he who deals craftily; although there is a ram in his flock, he vows and sacrifices a blemished one. For I am a great King, says the Lord of Hosts, and My Name is feared among the nations".Definately, YHWH lays great stress on the quality of the offering to Him. And yet, assuming for argument's sake that God making an offering to the humans is a valid concept, He is not capable to reciprocate and instead offers a badly damaged sacrifice?
The strength of an animal, one that can be used for multiple tasks, relies on it being 'unblemished'. As the Torah states in regards to the firstborn, which is offered for sacrifice, he is the strength of the family. An elder son carried on the family tradition and assisted the father in his tasks, which parallels with Abraham's binding of his firstborn Ishmael, not Isaac. The near human sacrifice was stopped, substituted by a ram. It was a test of Abraham's trust in God and had nothing to do with sin atonement, as retrospectively claimed by the NT writers that applied the incident to Jesus' death.
Where, as a side note, in Torah does God prescribe humans as appropriate for sin sacrifice? Instead we read that human sacrifices of any kind is a forbidden abomination Deut12:30-31,18:9-12,Jer19:4-6. God's anger in those verses is because He never commanded such a thing, not because they were made to another deity. God did not command Abraham to sacrifice his son in Genesis. It says, to "take him up", using ambiguous words as a means by which Abraham's trust in God is tested. The purpose was for Abraham to understand God's will based on His former promises.
- Another major inconsistency of the crucifixion as a sin offering, is that, Jewish law states it must be brought forth for unintentional sins Lev4,Num15:27-31. There are a few precise exceptions Lev5:1-6,6:1-7 but the overarching principle is that it should be a means of motivating individuals to true repentance. This undermines the notion of "once and for all sin sacrifice". Also, sin offerings did not apply to all offences, specific penalties are prescribed for many types of offence. For example, certain type of theft as described in Ex21:37 are only "forgiven" after payment of a fine, without requiring animal sacrifice. Numerous passages similarily explain how to expiate for sins in the absence of blood offerings.
- the notion of a "passover lamb" atoning for the sins of mankind Rom6:10,Heb9:12,10:10,18 misrepresents HB teachings on several levels. Firstly, the passover sacrifice is an individual offering, not communal Numb28:22 and according to Ex12, the Passover lamb was NOT a sin or even an atonement sacrifice but was meant to commemorate the Israelites' salvation from Egyptian bondage. Passover has thus nothing to do with repentance, but thanks-giving. Further, the Hebrew "seh" used in Ex12:3 doesnt mean a lamb as seen from V5"you can take the seh either from the lambs or from the goats".
The "paschal lamb" didnt therefore even have to be a lamb as proposed in John who was obviously writing to a pagan audience who was familiar with lambs in their mythologies. Other instances of thanks-giving animal sacrifices are Noah's offerings following the flood. Historically, as reported in the HB, the blood of the paschal lambs marked the door frames of houses of the ISraelites to spare their firstborn males once the plague of death is delivered to the land of Egypt. The lambs were also to be roasted and eaten. Jesus was neither roasted nor eaten, and, once more, the Passover lamb was in actuality many lambs, not one, which were NOT atonement sacrifices but thanksgiving offerings.
- Another issue is Paul's peculiar idea that blood sacrifice freed mankind from the bondage of the divine law. Deut30:10-14 describes this same Law as being at anyone's reach meaning it cannot be a means by which God has binded mankind. Further, passover sacrifices did not free the ISraelites from bondage, contrary to the parallel Paul tries making with Jesus' sacrifice being what freed mankind from the Law.
- Other blunders by the NT writers due to their unfamiliarities with Jewish laws, is that an offering can only be done in a place designated by God Deut12:13-14,16:1-6,Ex28:35,Gen22:2. Animal sacrifices brought as sin offerings may only occur in the Temple precinct as stressed in Lev17:8-9. When God built the Temple through Solomon, all sacrifices at other altars ceased. All the major Biblical figures, from Abraham down to Solomon followed the practice of erecting, anointing and sacrificing at altars Gen12:7-8,28:18-9,Ex24:3-4,Joshua4:20,1Kings3:4etc. Jesus was nailed on a pagan symbol, by pagans Jn19:23 and Lev17:8-9 further states that anyone bringing an offering outside the Temple is to be "cut off". Jesus offerred himself according to Heb9:14 yet he wasnt even an Aaronic priest.
It is the height of idiocy to argue God chose a pagan-run altar (the cross) for his place of sacrifice and choose idol-worshippers to perform an offering for Him. The very reason the altars were chosen by God was to avoid any tinge of idolatry. That is why the Israelites were instructed, upon their entry in Canaan they couldn't simply replace the existing altars of Canaan with their own, but they were ordered to smash them completely and leave not a trace of them Ex34:13, although they many times succombed to polytheism and worshiped at the pagan altars they were supposed to destroy 2Kings12:3,18:4,21:3.
- Jesus was tried on Passover night, or on the preceding night, in the palace of the high priest Mk14:53,Jn18:13. Yet the Sanhedrin in the time of Jesus was situated in the Chamber of Hewn Stone in the Temple. It was assembled daily, only in daytime between the hours of the two daily sacrifices (approximately 7:30 A.M.–3:30 P.M.). Assemblies never occured at night as the NT depict, on the Sabbaths or festivals, or on their eves.
The closest parallel one can make between Jesus' sin sacrifice and the HB is the scapegoat sacrifice Lev16 on a day called The Day of Atonement/Yom kippur done each year. Levitical, Aaronic priests must preside Ex29:9, not pagans as what happened to Jesus. Neither was Jesus an Aaronic priest, since he was from Judah. The apologetic counter argument that Jesus had the Melchizedek priesthood and thereby could offer up himself as a sacrifice is useless in this case. A non-Aaronic order of priesthood, regardless of its tribal origin has no relevancy to the requirements. Melchi-tzedek by the way is a description, not a name. It means "righteous king". Although individual offerings were brought for the expiation of specific, unintentional sins on Yom kippur, the offer brought on Yom Kippur that cleansed all sins (as in what Jesus is supposed to have accomplished) is the offer where the scapegoat was sent ALIVE into the wilderness, symbolicaly carrying away the sins. Even in that case, somewhat close to Jesus' sacrifice, the shedding of blood is not even an obligation for sin atonement.
And even then, this applies only if one repents. If one does not repent, the goat atones only for the light sins.
No comments:
Post a Comment