Is Jesus who He said He is?

[TheProcess]

Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life

How on earth could we know that? Jesus living a "sinless life" isn't something you could even have an eyewitness to.

[TheProcess]

Jesus IS both the Passover Lamb and the Yom Kippur offering. Both are types of Christ.

One problem with Jesus being "typed" as a Yom Kippur offering is that he didn't die on the right day. I think Jesus was said to have been killed on 15 Nisan (synoptic gospels) or 14 Nisan (John). Yom Kippur is on the 10th of Tishrei.

[TheProcess]

Let me clarify a bit for you. If you read Leviticus 16 going back as far as verse 5, you will note that the two goats constutued one offering.

One offering? It is far from clear to me that this is the case. Looking at a couple of Jewish translations it has "he shall take two he goats as a sin offering" or "he shall [also] take two goats for sin offerings".

7. And he shall take the two he goats, and place them before the Lord at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.

8. And Aaron shall place lots upon the two he goats: one lot "For the Lord," and the other lot, "For Azazel."

9. And Aaron shall bring the he goat upon which the lot, "For the Lord," came up, and designate it as a sin offering.

10. And the he goat upon which the lot "For Azazel" came up, shall be placed while still alive, before the Lord, to [initiate] atonement upon it, and to send it away to Azazel, into the desert.

(Judaica Press Tanach)

But at that point it doesn't appear that it had been determined which goat was to be used as a sin offering.

16. And he shall effect atonement upon the Holy from the defilements of the children of Israel and from their rebellions and all their unintentional sins. He shall do likewise to the Tent of Meeting, which dwells with them amidst their defilements

As I understand, the goat being used as a communal sin offering was only about sins connected to Temple impurities.

21. And Aaron shall lean both of his hands [forcefully] upon the live he goat's head and confess upon it all the willful transgressions of the children of Israel, all their rebellions, and all their unintentional sins, and he shall place them on the he goat's head, and send it off to the desert with a timely man.

The scapegoat was about all other communal sins.

The scapegoat did not offer atonement independent of the blood sacrifice of the other goat, and therefore does not constitute bloodless atonement of sin before God. Both goats were necessary, and the shedding of the blood of the one goat was necessary for the scapegoat to be effective; therefore, the shedding of blood is 100% essential.

The offerings on the day may have been connected:

18. And he shall then go out to the altar that is before the Lord and effect atonement upon it: He shall take some of the bull's blood and some of the he goat's blood, and place it on the horns of the altar, around.

19. He shall then sprinkle some of the blood upon it with his index finger seven times, and he shall cleanse it and sanctify it of the defilements of the children of Israel.

20. And he shall finish effecting atonement for the Holy, the Tent of Meeting, and the altar, and then he shall bring the live he goat.

Both the bull's blood and the goat's blood were used for "effecting atonement for the Holy, the Tent of Meeting, and the altar" before the scapegoat was done. It is true that the ritual on the day involved blood sacrifice, and it couldn't be done without it. Big deal. The scapegoat was still being used to atone for sin without the shedding of blood. It is an example that blood sacrifice was not some essential element to atonement.

[nebula]

But what if he did? Can you provide evidence He did not?

What if he did? This is a change of subject.

My point was simply that if God "makes the rules" then he can choose what he likes. Blood sacrifice isn't something necessary for atonement.

You are confusing me.

What I am hearing you say is that because God can chose what He likes, He either did not or would not require blood for atonement?

Why?

But if this is so, what do you believe is required for atonement?

[secondeve]

But what if he did? Can you provide evidence He did not?

What if he did? This is a change of subject.

My point was simply that if God "makes the rules" then he can choose what he likes. Blood sacrifice isn't something necessary for atonement.

You are confusing me.

What I am hearing you say is that because God can chose what He likes, He either did not or would not require blood for atonement?

Why?

But if this is so, what do you believe is required for atonement?

Nebula: I believe the point being made here was that, if it was God who decided what single thing would be necessary for atonement, then he chose blood - and the question is, why does it make sense that a loving God would choose that particular method of redemption over all others, especially given that in its current form, it excludes so many people?

[nebula]

The only thing that makes sense to me really, is this:

Imagine if you had to slaughter an animal everytime you broke the law. Wouldn't you be less likely to break it? Think we might have less speeders on the highways?

As far as sin, think of sin as anything you do that is damaging to another or yourself (stealing, adultery, bearing false witness . . . do you see how these are damaging?). How many good people do things like "borrow" an item that they didn't ask permission for? How often do even the best of people say and do things that are harmful to others? Is there truly anyone on this planet who is truly "self-less" - not motivated by "what is good for me"? Even Mother Theresa admitted to struggling with self-motivated desires rather than love.

So, what does it take to convince us of the severity of sin? Would a "nice" atonement get the message across?

No, it makes total sense that a loving God would chose make the consequences of sin as severe as possible so that we would be less inclined to repeat that sin.

You see, the Lord is not as interested in changed behavior as a changed heart, and the heart is changed by making choices and not by being "condiditoned."

We like to think we are good by our own merit, but if you had the strength to search your motives, you can be sure to find they aren't always so good and pretty. Those of us who have faced the reality of our hearts and confessed this iniquity before the Lord have found a great freedom. It wasn't pleasant to go through, but afterwards there was such a release.

From this perspective, the people that believe that if there is a God and a Heaven, then their own ability to be a good person (of course, by their own rules of what makes a person good) should be enough to gain them entrance to Heaven are still self-centered people. Because this perspective is still more concerned about "me" than on others - or on God Himself.

[Guest shiloh357]

Except perhaps where you mention that, "the Festivals, the Tabernacle structure and it's contents, the sacrifices and other services, the Priesthood/High Priest, all point to Jesus". Which you haven't given any evidence for.

I predict that you aren't going to be able to provide substantial evidence for this claim. But lets see...

Why am I so confident? Because I think shiloh357 has made the same mistake as "undone" -- using a non-literal reading of scripture which can't be supported with substantial evidence.

Actually, the only evidence I can provide is from Scripture, but since you don't hold Scripture as reliable, it would be a waste of my time to sit here and type out a lengthy, detailed and involved response that you will simply thumb your nose at.

I don't believe you. I think you are using non-literal interpretation that it would be impossible to provide solid evidence for.

No, I am using a literal interpretation, and that is the problem. I don't think you understand the difference bewtween "literal," and "face-value." Even if I typed it out, you would not give it a fair hearing, because you have already made your decision that the Bible has no authority for you. So, It would be like spitting against the wind to use the only source of evidence I have, which is the Bible. I cannot trust that you would be honest enough to take what the Bible says seriously, since you deny it is Scripture.

QUOTE

Could you support this claim from scripture? That the atonement in question, "simply brings one into good standing in the community", and has nothing to do with, "atoning for sin before God"?

That is not what I said; go back and read my post. What I said is that most people do not understand that the sacrifices also played a legal role in the civil affairs of the Theocracy under which Israel originally existed. The Sacrifices played "double-duty," if you will. If you note the offenses I cited earlier, they are civil offenses such as not offering relevant testimony in court when it was in one's power to do so, or touching a dead body. It is in regard to civil issues that one was allowed to bring the omer of flour. The omer of flour was NOT permitted with regard to one's guilt before God. Only blood was allowed in those instances.

Well if that isn't what you said, then flour does "atone for sin before God". I can't see what point you have.

Because if you had read post #140, I told you that the flour provided "atonement" regarding civil matters, but was never prescribed for Atonement where spiritual matters were concerned. It was not an expiatory offering that would have dealt with one's guilt before God. In regard to God's Justice, the guilt of sin, could only be atoned for by blood. The flour did not apply to that issue, therefore it is not inconsistent to say that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.

QUOTE(shiloh357 @ Nov 23 2006, 08:44 AM)

God, in His mercy, had to come up with a plan to redeem mankind from death, while preserving and satisfying His justice. Only blood, sinless blood, would work. It required that the innocent, the sinless, must die to cover the sins of the guilty. Yet none of us are guiltless, only God Himself. So it was upon God Himself to redeem mankind Himself since there was no one else to send.

"Only blood, sinless blood, would work"

What evidence do you have for this claim? Is this merely opinion?

And if "sinless blood" is required, you could always use an animal.

"It required that the innocent, the sinless, must die to cover the sins of the guilty"

This doesn't seem to have much to do with "justice".

My evidence comes from the Bible itself. If the blood of sinful man would have worked, God could have sacrificed anyone. In fact, the Bible says that Jesus was the Lamb considered slain before the foundation of the world was laid. The plan was already laid out even before the world was made. And yes, it has everything to do with Justice. It was the only way God could satisfy His justice while still being merciful to man. In one sense man deserves to be destroyed. God would have been within his rights to do so. But God provided a way for man, He gave himself on man's behalf. It was not "just" that He should do it, but it was the only way that God could redeem man without violating His own character.

QUOTE(shiloh357 @ Nov 23 2006, 08:44 AM)

Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life

How on earth could we know that? Jesus living a "sinless life" isn't something you could even have an eyewitness to.

The Bible says that Jesus was in all ways like unto us, and was tempted in every way we are tempted, yet was without sin. But I realize the Bible is not authoritative to you. But everything I know about Jesus is from the Bible.

QUOTE(shiloh357 @ Nov 18 2006, 09:37 AM)

Jesus IS both the Passover Lamb and the Yom Kippur offering. Both are types of Christ.

One problem with Jesus being "typed" as a Yom Kippur offering is that he didn't die on the right day. I think Jesus was said to have been killed on 15 Nisan (synoptic gospels) or 14 Nisan (John). Yom Kippur is on the 10th of Tishrei.

What you don't understand is that all of the five of sacrifices were met in the one sacrifice of Jesus. Jesus was at once the Passover offering and the final Sin offering at the same time. Also, keep in mind that the Festivals and other typologies do not end in sigfinicance with the first coming but also prophesy of His second coming as well. Yom Kippur may also be type of the day of Judgement. In fact, it is consistent with Jewish Theology.

[Guest Elder]

With all the different arguments, points and counterpoints hashed out here, it's easy to lose focus on the single most important, and some would argue the ONLY truly important issue.

You could spend the rest of your life arguing floods, six days, Joshua's long day, semantics...etc. It's all about the promised Savior.

Is Jesus who He said He is?

There are entire books written on this topic so I don't know that we can hash everything out here in a cohesive, non-offensive way. But it IS the question.

If He is, then all we need to do is what He asks and we will be saved. There's no other work to do. There's only a freely offered gift.

Is there anyone here who would turn down a FREE GIFT? One of the most powerful words in marketing is FREE. Another is NEW. The NEW testament offers a NEW life and it's FREE to anyone who asks.

Are the claims of Christ anything that we can trust? If so, how and why?

Who DID He say he is and how did HE prove it?

If we can honestly assess this and conclude its reasonably true, can we simply recognize our need for a Savior due our sin and accept this FREE gift?

I'll start, let's talk about the resurrection. What evidence does the bible offer that can lead someone to conclude this event occurred?

First, there's the testimony of the apostles, the Mary's, the disciples on the road to Emmaus, and the 500 who witnessed His ascension. In a court of law, it only takes two witness corraburate a claim.

There was the fact that the Jew's never make the claim that the tomb wasn't empty. There's nobody who denies the emptiness of the tomb.

There's the sealed tomb with a Roman guard around it. It is unlikely anyone was able to move a huge stone, even if the guards were asleep, without getting the attention of the guards. The Roman penalty for sleeping at your post was death. On top of that, they were aware that this was the day that the disciples were to expect the resurrection. It seems the Romans would have been particularly prepared to guard the tomb on this night.

I'll stop there and let your responses continue the discussion.

Either Jesus was who He said he was or he was a coplete liar and a fake- there cannot be any other conclusion because His claims were so radical and outragous! He could not have been just a good man! He either was the Son of God or He has misled many and since there was no-one in His lifetime or since who could convict Him of even the smallest lie or sin my conclusion is that He is the Messiah, the Christ of God the only man ever to have lived a perfect life and died a perfect selfless death so that we, who in effect were His enemies, might have life!

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE(shiloh357 @ Nov 18 2006, 10:30 AM)

Let me clarify a bit for you. If you read Leviticus 16 going back as far as verse 5, you will note that the two goats constutued one offering.

One offering? It is far from clear to me that this is the case. Looking at a couple of Jewish translations it has "he shall take two he goats as a sin offering" or "he shall [also] take two goats for sin offerings".

QUOTE

7. And he shall take the two he goats, and place them before the Lord at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.

8. And Aaron shall place lots upon the two he goats: one lot "For the Lord," and the other lot, "For Azazel."

9. And Aaron shall bring the he goat upon which the lot, "For the Lord," came up, and designate it as a sin offering.

10. And the he goat upon which the lot "For Azazel" came up, shall be placed while still alive, before the Lord, to [initiate] atonement upon it, and to send it away to Azazel, into the desert.

(Judaica Press Tanach)

No, it does not say, "sin offerings." You are trying to pencil that in. Not only does the JP Tanach not agree with that, but I speak and read Hebrew. The word used for "sin offering" in Lev. 16:5 is l'khatat. If it was meant to be understood as "sin offerings" the word used would have been l'khataot.

But at that point it doesn't appear that it had been determined which goat was to be used as a sin offering.

Irrelevant.

QUOTE

16. And he shall effect atonement upon the Holy from the defilements of the children of Israel and from their rebellions and all their unintentional sins. He shall do likewise to the Tent of Meeting, which dwells with them amidst their defilements

As I understand, the goat being used as a communal sin offering was only about sins connected to Temple impurities.

Well then, you would understand wrong. From the JPS Tanach:

Then shall he kill the goat of the sin-offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil, and do with his blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the ark-cover, and before the ark-cover. And he shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleannesses of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, even all their sins; and so shall he do for the tent of meeting, that dwelleth with them in the midst of their uncleannesses.

(Leviticus 16:15-16)

Note that it was for all of their sins, not just certain sins.

The scapegoat was about all other communal sins.

Wrong again. Please note v. 21 from the JPS Tanach:

And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of an appointed man into the wilderness.

(Leviticus 16:21)

The offerings on the day may have been connected:

QUOTE

18. And he shall then go out to the altar that is before the Lord and effect atonement upon it: He shall take some of the bull's blood and some of the he goat's blood, and place it on the horns of the altar, around.

19. He shall then sprinkle some of the blood upon it with his index finger seven times, and he shall cleanse it and sanctify it of the defilements of the children of Israel.

20. And he shall finish effecting atonement for the Holy, the Tent of Meeting, and the altar, and then he shall bring the live he goat.

Both the bull's blood and the goat's blood were used for "effecting atonement for the Holy, the Tent of Meeting, and the altar" before the scapegoat was done. It is true that the ritual on the day involved blood sacrifice, and it couldn't be done without it. Big deal. The scapegoat was still being used to atone for sin without the shedding of blood. It is an example that blood sacrifice was not some essential element to atonement.

Now you are just grapsing at straws. The scape goat and the goat offered on the altar constitute ONE offering. They were two parts of a whole. They cannot be separated. They were not two different offerings, for two different types of sins. They constitute ONE offering because together, they typify Jesus who was not only offered as a blood sacrifice for the sins of the world, but is also the one of whom it was written would bear our sins and carried our iniquities. He was the one who died for sins but also has taken our sins from us. Just as the sins of Israel were imputed to the scapegoat, likewise our sins were imputed to Jesus:

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

(2 Corinthians 5:21)

You are desparately trying to erase what the Bible says, which is peculiar, since you don't believe it anyway. The Bible teaches that without blood there is no remission of sin. Try as you might, you will not be allowed to twist the Bible to suit your disbelief. You don't know the Bible very well, much less how to handle it or interpret it, as can be seen in your beggardly attempt to do so, thus far.

[TheProcess]

You are confusing me.

What I am hearing you say is that because God can chose what He likes, He either did not or would not require blood for atonement?

Why?

I am not saying that if God can choose what he likes then he wouldn't choose blood. I am ONLY saying that if God makes the rules then he can choose what he likes. Perhaps blood, perhaps something else.

Edited November 24, 2006 by TheProcess