G-d Abhors Human Sacrifice

[Zahava]

P.S. Please excuse me if I spelled out the English title of Elohim. I’m not used to the convention of substituting an underline for the o.

Thanks and best,

vacath

Vacath, when religious Jews say in casual the Almighy - we say or write Elokim. We change the h to a k.

instead of saying G-d we say HaShem / the name
In our prayers we say Adonai instead of the name we can never pronounce (YKVK) again I have typed K instead of H

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

If God hates human sacrifice, then why did God ask Abraham to sacrrifice his son? If you don’t know this, it is a typology of God sacrificicing his only Son.

As, I pointed out before, all you have proven is God hates sacrifices made to false gods. Each of your proof texts is such.

Genesis, the first book of the Bible, has Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son to God. “Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you.” (Genesis 22:1-18) Abraham takes his own son up on a mountain and builds an altar upon which to burn him. He even lies to his son and has him help build the altar. Then Abraham ties his son to the altar and puts a knife to his throat. He then hears God tell him this was just a test of his faith. However, God still wanted to smell some burnt flesh so he tells Abraham to burn a ram.

Leviticus 27:28-29

28 “However, anything specially set apart for the Lord—whether a person, an animal, or family property—must never be sold or bought back. Anything devoted in this way has been set apart as holy, and it belongs to the Lord. 29 No person specially set apart for destruction may be bought back. Such a person must be put to death.

Judges 11:29-40

29 At that time the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he went throughout the land of Gilead and Manasseh, including Mizpah in Gilead, and from there he led an army against the Ammonites. 30 And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord. He said, “If you give me victory over the Ammonites, 31 I will give to the Lord whatever comes out of my house to meet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”
32 So Jephthah led his army against the Ammonites, and the Lord gave him victory. 33 He crushed the Ammonites, devastating about twenty towns from Aroer to an area near Minnith and as far away as Abel-keramim. In this way Israel defeated the Ammonites.

34 When Jephthah returned home to Mizpah, his daughter came out to meet him, playing on a tambourine and dancing for joy. She was his one and only child; he had no other sons or daughters. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes in anguish. “Oh, my daughter!” he cried out. “You have completely destroyed me! You’ve brought disaster on me! For I have made a vow to the Lord, and I cannot take it back.”

36 And she said, “Father, if you have made a vow to the Lord, you must do to me what you have vowed, for the Lord has given you a great victory over your enemies, the Ammonites. 37 But first let me do this one thing: Let me go up and roam in the hills and weep with my friends for two months, because I will die a virgin.”

38 “You may go,” Jephthah said. And he sent her away for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never have children. 39 When she returned home,** her father kept the vow he had made, and she died a virgin.**

So it has become a custom in Israel 40 for young Israelite women to go away for four days each year to lament the fate of Jephthah’s daughter.

1 Kings 13

1 At the Lord’s command, a man of God from Judah went to Bethel, arriving there just as Jeroboam was approaching the altar to burn incense. 2 Then at the Lord’s command, he shouted, “O altar, altar! This is what the Lord says: A child named Josiah will be born into the dynasty of David. On you he will sacrifice the priests from the pagan shrines who come here to burn incense, and human bones will be burned on you.”

 

[RobNY]

I understand the article quite well, Agnos. Did I say j*sus killed anyone? You as a Christian, believe that J is G-d. Christians say that G-d sacrificed His own Son J.

With the above said… I repeat. Being that G-d abhors human sacrfices why oh why would G-d kill His son when He abhors this very act?

He did not kill His Son.

God did not hate the Son, He was not at enmity with the Son, He did not murder Him on the Cross, He did not torture Him with the pains of hell.

And again, He did not kill His Son.

Catholics think that God sent His Son out of Love and that the Son came out of Love.

Nor is God the Father the priest in the sacrifice. God the Father is not the one offering the sacrifice. Jesus is. That is why the Christian tradition recognizes Jesus as the High Priest in a new and perfect priesthood (cf. the Epistle to the Hebrews).

If sacrifice consisted entirely in destruction (which is false), then the true priests would be Christ’s cruel executioners. Instead, however, Jesus is the true High Priest. This is because the value of sacrifice comes completely from the love with which He loved, and the freedom with which He laid down His own life.

Since we hold that Jesus is the true priest, it is impossible to claim that the Father sacrificed the Son-- for then we’d have to believe the Father the true priest. The sacrifice consisted in the Son lovingly and obediently laying down His life, and so He is the true priest. And not the Father, nor His cruel executioners.

You may be familiar with a man named Joseph Ratzinger. He is our current pope. Prior to this, he wrote a book called, “Introduction to Christianity.” In it he criticizes the same idea that you criticize, that, “Christian faith in the Cross imagines a God whose unrelenting righteousness demanded a human sacrifice, the sacrifice of his own Son."

For him, it is the reverse, the "expression of the radical nature of love that gives itself completely”

He emphasizes, “the fundamental principle of the sacrifice is not destruction but love”

“The Cross is not a matter of accumulation of physical pain, as if its redemptive value consisted in its involving the largest possible amount of physical torture.". “Why,” Ratzinger asks, “should God take pleasure in the sufferings of his creature, indeed his own Son, or see in it the currency with which reconciliation needs to be purchased from him?"

As you can see, the idea you had is as far as possible from the proper Catholic interpretation of the Cross. He says, “, “it is an unworthy concept of God to imagine for oneself a God who demands the slaughter of his Son to pacify his wrath.”

In the words of Pope Pius XII, “the mystery of our divine Redeemer is fundamentally a mystery of love; the mystery, namely, of that love of Christ for his heavenly father by which he offers him the sacrifice of the cross in a spirit of love and obedience and achieves the superabundant and infinite satisfaction."

You have the Catholic teaching mixed up with the highly problematic teaching which has been made baser and been warped into a horrible caricature which derives from John Calvin, the father of Calvinist Protestantism. You can find his teaching in the Institutes of Christian Religion, bk. II, ch. 16. His teaching is not the Church’s teaching.

-Rob

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I think this site states your case better and answers it well.

“Was Jesus’ death a violation of the commandment against human sacrifice?”

So, what emerges from the textual data is that CHILD SACRIFICE IS WRONG BECAUSE IT IS MURDER. (Cf. Ex 23.7: do not put an innocent or honest person to death)
It is not ‘killing’ that is the issue here–for Israel was commanded to enforce a detailed judicial death penalty–it is ONLY murder.

In fact, the capital-offense GUILTY are supposed to be executed/killed (Dt 19.11: But if a man hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him, assaults and kills him, and then flees to one of these cities, 12 the elders of his town shall send for him, bring him back from the city, and hand him over to the avenger of blood to die. 13 Show him no pity. You must purge from Israel the guilt of shedding innocent blood, so that it may go well with you.).

**Now, technically, the contradiction does NOT exist, for two reasons: (1) Jesus was obviously not a child when the crucifixion occurred and (2) He was not ‘innocent’ AFTER the point at which He ‘became sin for us’ (2 Cor 5.21: God made him who had no sin to be sin for us) and ‘He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree’–I Pet 2.24. It is only AFTER this point that God’s wrath was poured out upon our Lord. **

But there is also MORE data that is relevant to dealing with the bigger theological picture here.

Without trying to show a ‘mastery of the obvious’ here, let me restate the facts and ask the next level question.

**To kill an innocent child as a sacrifice was murder.
To kill an innocent child (in normal circumstances) was murder.
To kill an adult guilty of a capital offense was justice.
To kill an innocent adult was murder.
But the next question is: was it okay for an innocent adult to sacrifice himself/herself (not in the sense of suicide, but in the sense of a substitution)? [Notice that this question is only oblique to the issue of Jesus–He became ‘guilty’ FOR us, so number 3 above was His situation–deliberately.]
For example, is it morally right for an adult to take a substitutionary role: **

by paying the parking ticket for someone
by paying someone’s personal debts
by getting accidentally hit in trying to break up a fight
by contracting a highly-contagious fatal disease during caring for someone dying of that disease
by being killed by a car, after pushing a child out of the street to safety
by being hit with a sniper’s bullet, while attempting to shield the President from gunfire (e.g. Secret Service agents)
We normally do not consider these cases of self-sacrifice to be immoral–indeed, we typically praise these actions. In the above cases, we have varying degrees of substitution with various levels of certainty of the outcome.
And, if we consider Jesus’ words on the matter in John 15.13:

Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.
and the ever humbling Mark 10.45:
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
[Needless to say, the Jesus who affirmed the Law saw no contradiction in voluntarily dying for His friends–as obvious from OTHER passages that portray His death as voluntary–NOT ‘exacted from’ Him:
John 10.11: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
John 10.15: just as the Father knows me and I know the Father – and I lay down my life for the sheep.
John 10.17: The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life – only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”]
This self-giving is linked to the sacrificial ritual explicitly in Hebrews 7.27 ( Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.) and Hebrews 9:14 ( How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!).
So what do we have so far?

The prohibitions against child sacrifice were considered cases of murder.
There is no contradiction–Jesus was not a child and not ‘innocent’ at the point of punishment (it was justice and not murder).
It is a moral goodness to give oneself sacrificially for others, according to Jesus.
Jesus saw no contradiction in His affirmations of the Law and his role as the Suffering Sin-bearing Servant of Isaiah (Is 53).
Jesus was not a victim; He was the priestly offerer.
Jesus was ‘unblemished’ BEFORE the Cross–it was the only reason He could become a substitute (all sacrifices had to be without defect in the system).
Now, one question still remains–was it against the Law for an unblemished Jesus to ‘take on the sins of the world’ as the Lamb of God?
Strictly speaking, this is where the deity of Jesus comes into importance. Only GOD has the sovereign ability to accept substitutes and/or transfer legal liability (In the OT, attempts to offer unauthorized things met with disastrous consequences–cf. Lev 10) . So, in Isaiah 53 we see the actions of YAHWEH in ‘laying’ the sins of Israel upon the Messianic Servant:

We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (53.6)
and
For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. (53.6)
and
Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering (53.10)
and
For he bore the sin of many, (53.12)
Notice that this issue of a human (albeit special), sacrificing His life for other humans, at God’s sovereign direction, is an OLD TESTAMENT issue FIRST–NOT a ‘Christian’ issue–we simply inherited it from them (smile)!
The net of this is that Jesus, as God, could fully cooperate with the Father and the Spirit in taking on the sins of the world–without violating the OT.

But time for a reality check–did the Jews of the period see a problem with a righteous person giving their life in this way?

Not at all…In fact, this “substitution motif” was applied to Moses (in Isaiah 53), to some rabbi’s, and to the innocents:

“The atonement of suffering and death is not limited to the suffering person. The atoning effect extends to all the generation. This is especially the case
with such sufferers as cannot either by reason of their righteous life or by their youth possibly have merited the afflictions which have come upon them.
The death of the righteous atones just as well as certain sacrifices.’ [Mechilta, 72b]… There are also applied to Moses the Scriptural words, “And he bore
the sins of many” (Isa- 53 12), because of his offering himself as an atonement for Israel’s sin with the golden calf, being ready to sacrifice his very soul for
Israel, when he said, “And if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book (that is, from the Book of the Living), which thou hast written” (Exod- 32 32).’ [Sotah,
14a and Berachoth 32a] This readiness to sacrifice oneself for Israel is characteristic of all the great men of Israel, the patriarchs and the Prophets acting in
the same way, whilst also some Rabbis would, on certain occasions, exclaim, “Behold, I am the atonement of Israel”” [Mechilta, 2a; Mishnah Negaim 2.1]
(Solomon Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology:310)

We have two passages in the Jewish intertestamental literature that illustrate how two martyrs were understood this way:

4 Macc 6:26-28: "When he was now burned to his very bones and about to expire, he lifted up his eyes to God and said, 27 “You know, O God, that though I might have saved myself, I am dying in burning torments for the sake of the law. 28 Be merciful to your people, and let our punishment suffice for them. 29 Make my blood their purification, and take my life in exchange for theirs.”

4 Macc 17.20-22: “These, then, who have been consecrated for the sake of God, are honored, not only with this honor, but also by the fact that because of them our enemies did not rule over our nation, 21 the tyrant was punished, and the homeland purified-they having become, as it were, a ransom for the sin of our nation. 22 And through the blood of those devout ones and their death as an atoning sacrifice, divine Providence preserved Israel that previously had been mistreated.”

So, the understanding developed above is in line with the Jewish thought patterns of the period.

In summary, we see that the biblical data says that the Crucifixion is morally ‘okay’(!). That event is a complex of many events–judgment, self-sacrifice, ransom, priestly offering, substitution, guilt-transference, etc. The biblical authors (OT, Jesus, NT) didn’t put it all together completely into a nice and neat ‘system’ (and neither can we), but they certainly didn’t see any glaring contradictions between those various biblical themes.

christian-thinktank.com/sacra.html

 

[lukewarm]

Playing devil’s advocate here, if I am at war and a landmine falls into my fighting hole and I jump on it sacrificing my life but saving my entire squad would I be destined for hell because “God abhors human sacrifice”?

 

[Zahava]

Playing devil’s advocate here, if I am at war and a landmine falls into my fighting hole and I jump on it sacrificing my life but saving my entire squad would I be destined for hell because “God abhors human sacrifice”?

I read about the lady who put her infant in a trash can and sacrificed her body so the pit bull would not attach the infant. Good for her… and good for you if you do as stated above.

However, these 2 instances has nothing to do with sacrificing for the “sins”.

In the 18th chapter of Ezekiel, the prophet was teaching his people a fundamental biblical principle: **A righteous person cannot die vicariously for the sins of the wicked. ** This notion was identified as thoroughly pagan and was to be avoided by the Jewish people at all costs, and is taught emphatically throughout the 18th chapter of Ezekiel. In verses 20-23 the prophet declares that repentance alone provides full forgiveness of sin. Never are blood-sacrifices or the veneration of a crucified messiah mentioned throughout Ezekiel’s thorough and inspiring discourse on sin and atonement.

Ezekiel’s teaching was not new. The Jewish people were warned throughout the Torah never to offer human sacrifices. When Moses offered to have his name removed from the Torah in exchange for the sin that the Jewish people had committed with the golden calf, the Almighty abruptly refused Moses’ offer.3 Moses, who was righteous with regard to the golden calf, could not suffer vicariously for the sin of the nation. Rather, only the soul that sinned would endure judgment.

And BTW,
Ezekiel outlines many of the sins that the wicked may have committed, and yet not one of them is eating from the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. On the contrary, all of the sins outlined are those that were never committed in the Garden of Eden.

Ezekiel;s chapter here is a prophetic teaching on sin and atonement in general, and a vigorous condemnation of the thoroughly pagan belief in vicarious atonement.

 

[AgnosTheist]

I understand the article quite well, Agnos. Did I say j*sus killed anyone? You as a Christian, believe that J is G-d. Christians say that G-d sacrificed His own Son J.

First of all I am NOT a christian. I think all religions are make-believe.

Being that G-d abhors human sacrfices why oh why would G-d kill His son when He abhors this very act?

Christians dont believe that God killed his Son. Its the Jews who killed jesus. According to the stories, it was Jesus’ personal decision to allow the mob to do whatever they want with him.

 

[Zahava]

If God hates human sacrifice, then why did God ask Abraham to sacrrifice his son? If you don’t know this, it is a typology of God sacrificicing his only Son.

It was a test only.

1. And He said, “Please take your son, your only one, whom you love, yea, Isaac, and go away to the land of Moriah and bring him up there for a burnt offering on one of the mountains, of which I will tell you.”

RASHI explains

Please take Heb. קַח נָא is only an expression of a request. He [God] said to him, “I beg of you, pass this test for Me, so that people will not say that the first ones [tests] had no substance.” - [from Sanh. ad loc.]

**your son **He [Abraham] said to Him,“ I have two sons.” He [God] said to him,“ Your only one.” He said to Him,“ This one is the only son of his mother, and that one is the only son of his mother.” He said to him,“ Whom you love.” He said to Him,“ I love them both.” He said to him,“ Isaac.” Now why did He not disclose this to him at the beginning? In order not to confuse him suddenly, lest his mind become distracted and bewildered, and also to endear the commandment to him and to reward him for each and every expression. — [from Sanh. 89b, Gen. Rabbah 39:9, 55:7]
the land of Moriah Jerusalem, and so in (II) Chronicles (3:1):“to build the House of the Lord in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah.” And our Sages explained that [it is called Moriah] because from there [religious] instruction (הוֹרָאָה) goes forth to Israel. Onkelos rendered it “the land of service”] as alluding to the service of the incense, which contained myrrh “mor” is phonetically similar to Moriah], spikenard, and other spices.

bring him up He did not say to him, “Slaughter him,” because the Holy One, blessed be He, did not wish him to slaughter him but to bring him up to the mountain, to prepare him for a burnt offering, and as soon as he brought him up [to the mountain], He said to him, “Take him down.” - [from Gen. Rabbah 56:8]one of the mountains The Holy One, blessed be He, makes the righteous wonder (other editions: makes the righteous wait), and only afterwards discloses to them [His intentions], and all this is in order to increase their reward. Likewise, (above 12:1): “to the land that I will show you,” and likewise, concerning Jonah (3:2): “and proclaim upon it the proclamation.” - [from Gen. Rabbah 55:7]

Leviticus 27:28-29

28 “However, anything specially set apart for the Lord—whether a person, an animal, or family property—must never be sold or bought back. Anything devoted in this way has been set apart as holy, and it belongs to the Lord.

RASHI explains:
However, anything that a man devotes… Our Rabbis are in dispute regarding this matter [of devoted property]: Some say that unqualified vows of devoted property * go [automatically] to Sanctuary moneys [designated for maintenance of the Temple. Now, according to this ruling,] what then is the meaning of, “Anything devoted in Israel shall belong to you”? (Num. 18:14). This refers to vows of devoted property specifically designated to the kohanim, whereby someone says explicitly: “This is (חֵרֶם) devoted for the kohen .” But some [Rabbis] say that unqualified vows of devoted property go [automatically] to the kohanim . — [Arachin 28b]
shall not be sold, nor shall it be redeemed But, it must be given to the kohen . [For] according to those who rule that unqualified vows of devoted property go [automatically] to the kohanim (see preceding Rashi), they explain this verse as referring to unqualified vows of devoted property, while those who rule that unqualified vows of devoted property go [automatically] to [Sanctuary moneys designated for] maintenance of the Temple, explain this verse as referring to vows of devoted property specifically designated to the kohanim. For all agree that devoted property specifically designated to kohanim does not have any redemption, until it falls into the possession of the kohen [and the property then becomes completely non-consecrated and can even be sold by the kohen (Sifthei Chachamim)]. Devoted property to the One on High *, may be redeemed [at its market value even before it reaches the Temple treasury, and its redemption moneys go for maintenance of the Holy Temple, and the property itself then becomes non-consecrated]. — [Sifthei Chachamim ; Arachin 29a]

all devoted things are holy of holies* Those who rule that unqualified vows of devoted property go for maintenance of the Holy Temple, bring this verse as proof [to their position]. However, those who rule that unqualified vows of devoted property go to the kohanim, explain the phrase here, “all devoted things are holy of holies (קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים),” to mean that the act of devoting items to the kohanim can take effect upon [animal sacrifices with the degree of] “holy of holies” [indicated by the use of the double expression here, קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים] and [moreover, even the single expression itself here, קֹדֶשׁ, indicates that this act can take effect upon sacrifices with a degree] of lesser holiness. Thus, [if someone undertakes to bring a sacrifice, allocates which animal he is to sacrifice and then subsequently devotes that animal to the kohanim,] he must give [the relevant money (see below)] to the kohen [and then sacrifices the animal for the offering he had undertaken], just as we have learnt in Tractate Arachin (28b): If [he made] a vow (נֶדֶר) [to bring a sacrifice, i.e., he said, “I take upon myself (to bring an animal as such-and-such a sacrifice)” (see Rashi on Lev. 22: 18)-in this case, if an animal he had then allocated becomes lost or blemished, he must fulfill his vow with a replacement animal, for his vow was to bring a sacrifice and was not limited to that particular animal. Therefore, in the case of a devoted vow (נֶדֶר),] he must give [to the kohen, money worth] the full value [of the animal, for it is still considered fully his when he devoted it to the kohen]. And if [he committed himself in the form of] a donation (נְדָבָה) [saying, “This particular animal is to be brought as such-and-such a sacrifice” (see Rashi on Lev. 22:18)-in this case, if the animal he had allocated becomes lost or blemished, he need not replace it, for his undertaking was limited only to that particular animal, and therefore the animal is no longer considered his. Therefore, in the case of a devoted donation (נְדָבָה) ,] he need give only [the monetary value of] the “benefit” for the [animal which means: Since in case the animal is lost or dies, he would not be required to bring another one in replacement, then once he has set the animal aside for the purpose of that particular sacrifice, he is considered to have already fulfilled his duty, and so, his actual sacrificing it becomes simply a gift to God, as it were. Enjoying this gesture of presenting a gift to God is the “benefit” he has from that animal and which is also the extent of his monetary ownership. This “benefit” is valued as follows: Someone else, who was not obligated to bring this sacrifice, is asked how much he would pay to have this animal sacrificed in his name as a gift to God. The amount that this person states is the amount that the one devoting must give to the kohen , and then he must bring the animal as a sacrifice, as per his undertaking to bring a donation]. — [Mishnah Arachin 8:6-7 and see Rashi on Talmud Arachin 28b]
[Anything that a man devotes… from any of his property -] whether it be a person For example, if he devotes his non-Jewish male or female servants [for they are considered his property]. — [Arachin 28a]

27:29 No person specially set apart for destruction may be bought back. Such a person must be put to death.

The actual translation is

27:29. Any devoting of a person who has been devoted, need not be redeemed [for] he is to be put to death.

RASHI explains:
Any devoting… who has been devoted [This verse refers to] someone who [has been sentenced to death, and, as he] is going out to be executed, another person declares, “I hereby make a personal commitment [to pay] his valuation!” his words have no validity. — [Arachin 6b]
[And why not? Because] he is to be put to death i.e., he is on his way to be executed, and therefore, he “cannot be redeemed”-he has no market value [as a slave] or any valuation.

Post too long… I will reply the remainder in another post.*

 

[Zahava]

First of all I am NOT a christian. I think all religions are make-believe.

Christians dont believe that God killed his Son. Its the Jews who killed jesus. According to the stories, it was Jesus’ personal decision to allow the mob to do whatever they want with him.

Oh yes, I forgot who I was posting to. Nope, you are wrong… the Jews did not “kill” j*sus - The Romans soldiers did.

 

[AgnosTheist]

The Romans soldiers did.

Because the Jews demanded it.

 

[Zahava]

I think this site states your case better and answers it well.

While I read this post of yours Daniel.

Please be so kind to answer specifically what I asked. Thanks

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2690262&postcount=20

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

God says be can’t murder yet he kills innocent infants.
God says we can’t sacrifice humans yet he sacrifices his own Son.

Should I go on? Or do you see where I’m getting?

As I said before, you have to distinguish between the rule-maker and the player.

So the question for you Zahava is: is God against human sacrifices or is he against human sacrifices offered by us humans?

 

[Peregrino]

Can guilt really be attributed to the Romans if Jesus allowed himself to die when he had the power to avoid that death?

John 10.18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.

If no one takes it, there is no murder/killing involved. No one should be considered to have “killed” Jesus.

 

[Zahava]

Because the Jews demanded it.

only if one believes the christian’s n.t. story here

 

[AgnosTheist]

only if one believes the christian’s n.t. story here

your thread is partly about what they believe.

 

[Zahava]

God says be can’t murder yet he kills innocent infants.
God says we can’t sacrifice humans yet he sacrifices his own Son.

Should I go on? Or do you see where I’m getting?

As I said before, you have to distinguish between the rule-maker and the player.

So the question for you Zahava is: is God against human sacrifices or is he against human sacrifices offered by us humans?

Follow the hand of G-d on His Servant Israel from the very beginning Gandal… with the Jewish Bible… start with Genesis when the world was created. There is an interliner from Artscroll. Lashon Kodesh above/English below. And everything you just said will be cleared up.

Take all the christian’s so called prophecies and read them in context and in lashon kodesh… you will learn much

Read the prophet Ezek. on sin and atonement. Read Tehillim/Psalms on how one’s sin’s are forgiven.

Find out what the role of the Jewish messiah is to be.
He certainly is not going to come down grab the christians and take them back to heaven.

Heaven is where we go when we die. The Temple will be built again. In Jerusalem and the the Jews will be gathered there. The nations will come and worship. It’s all there in TaNaCH

singing… The T O R A H , yes that’s the book for me. I stand alone (NOT) rather, I stand with klal Yisroel on the Word of G-d the T O R A H

I took my family… oops rather, My Tattie took my family to Synagogue wih him to pray to HaShem and read T O R A H. Oh, how I love T O R A H

I hope you come soon… ooops rather, I pray you will soon see,
that teshuva brings you back to G-d. Repent of yours ways, and live righteously, as commanded by the T O R A H

gotta go…last post for the day as Shabbos is arriving and I need to finish my preparations in greeting the Shabbos Queen.

If anybody is interested - I have a video of Shabbos on my blogsite.

All the best to everyone.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Follow the hand of G-d on His Servant Israel from the very beginning Gandal… with the Jewish Bible… start with Genesis when the world was created. There is an interliner from Artscroll. Lashon Kodesh above/English below. And everything you just said will be cleared up.

Take all the christian’s so called prophecies and read them in context and in lashon kodesh… you will learn much

Read the prophet Ezek. on sin and atonement. Read Tehillim/Psalms on how one’s sin’s are forgiven.

Find out what the role of the Jewish messiah is to be.
He certainly is not going to come down grab the christians and take them back to heaven.

Heaven is where we go when we die. The Temple will be built again. In Jerusalem and the the Jews will be gathered there. The nations will come and worship. It’s all there in TaNaCH

singing… The T O R A H , yes that’s the book for me. I stand alone (NOT) rather, I stand with klal Yisroel on the Word of G-d the T O R A H

I took my family… oops rather, My Tattie took my family to Synagogue wih him to pray to HaShem and read T O R A H. Oh, how I love T O R A H

I hope you come soon… ooops rather, I pray you will soon see,
that teshuva brings you back to G-d. Repent of yours ways, and live righteously, as commanded by the T O R A H

gotta go…last post for the day as Shabbos is arriving and I need to finish my preparations in greeting the Shabbos Queen.

If anybody is interested - I have a video of Shabbos on my blogsite.

All the best to everyone.

All best to you too!

So since this has nothing to do with my question then questions nor the post I assume that you agree that Jesus’ Sacrifice isn’t against God. Good!

Pax Domini,
~G

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel, please give your source from TaNaCH for your last 3 statements above.

Gabriel, how does j*sus supposed sacrifice fulfill Maclachi 1:11.
This verse speaks of the Almighty.

1. For, from the rising of the sun until its setting, My Name is great among the nations, and everywhere offerings are burnt and offered up to My Name; yea, a pure oblation, for My Name is great among the nations, says the Lord of Hosts.

RASHI explains:
**My Name is great among the nations **Our Sages stated (Men. 110a): For they call Him the God of the gods. Even one who has an idol knows that He is the God Who is over all of them - and everywhere they donate in My Name. Our Sages, however, explained: These are the Torah scholars who are engaged in the laws of the Temple service everywhere, and likewise, every prayer of Israel that they pray anywhere is to Me as a pure oblation. And so did Jonathan paraphrase: And every time that you do My will, I accept your prayer, and My great Name is sanctified through you, and your prayer is like a pure offering before Me. This is the explanation of the verse: Now why do you profane My Name? Is it not great among the nations? As for Me, My love and My affection are upon you wherever you pray before Me, and even in exile, [offerings are] burnt and offered up to My Name.
yea, a pure oblation it is to Me, for through you My Name is feared among the nations. Yet you profane Me and My Name.

Again, please give your source from TaNaCH…

**and rightly so as G-d gave His chosen signs to make all clear **…

Genesis 9:12 And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come:

Genesis 17:11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.

Exodus 31:17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.’ "

Exodus 3:12 And God said, “I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain.”

Exodus 12:13 The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt

etc, etc. etc…

Zahava, Iam pleased with your interest, although Your request may take us off topic, Iam happy to answer your questions. Zahava you place to much intelligence on me although I have my resources not to mention The first century Jews, and Pharisees, Including the historical Jesus, but what resource is Tanach?

 

[Zahava]

God says be can’t murder yet he kills innocent infants.
God says we can’t sacrifice humans yet he sacrifices his own Son.

Should I go on? Or do you see where I’m getting?

As I said before, you have to distinguish between the rule-maker and the player.

So the question for you Zahava is: is God against human sacrifices or is he against human sacrifices offered by us humans?

Gandal, do you know why He commanded that these men, women, children, and yes infants be wiped out? This is why I said in my other post to you that you should learn Hebrew. Answers to the above is there.

My answer to you: Yes, G-d is against human sacrifices.
and therefore, yes, He is against human sacrifices offered by us humans

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Bottom line… being that the Almighty abhors human sacrifice - would He indeed go against what He abhors and kill Himself?

Why does the Ancient One demand the death of so many nations in the Old Testament?

Why are the laws so specific as to killing non-Jews and Jews for various offenses (see Leviticus and Numbers)?

Sondra, you do NOT understand the Eucharist.

Study the Catholic scripture and midrash (early Church Fathers) and you will better understand that your reference article and assertions are without merit.

The promise God made to Abraham was for “all nations.”

The history of that stubborn-necked people and the Prophets God sent to them to keep putting them back on track ended with God (as Man) among us (Emmanuel).

Only Orthodox assert what you repeat. Reform does not.

Which Jew is the better informed?

Robert