Jesus' "sacrifice" - really?

[O'Darby III]

It's standard orthodoxy that Jesus had to be sinless and perfect in order to be an acceptable sacrifice for the sins of humanity. If he wasn't born of a virgin or ever looked at a woman with lust, God's entire plan goes poof. We're told that the OT system of animal sacrifice was a prefiguring of the ultimate sacrifice of God's own son.

Ever think about this? Ever think about the absolutely obscene OT system of sacrifice?

"Some passages in the [OT] depict priests wading up to their knees in blood, and others describe 1.2 million animals being slaughtered on one day. And the ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus also describes an enormous slaughtering operation." https://www.nbcnews.com/sciencemain...powered-ancient-jerusalems-economy-8c11073738.

1 Kings 8:62-63 tells us that Solomon slaughtered 22,000 cattle and 120,000 sheep and goats at the dedication of the Temple.

Josephus records that in 4 BC over 250,000 lambs were sacrificed for the Passover. Joachim Jeremias, in Jerusalem in the Times of Jesus, calculates that the three courses of priests on duty during the two-hour period for sacrifice during Passover could slay "only" 18,000 lambs, meaning the other 232,000 were likely slain by individuals in their own homes. See https://www.bibletools.org/index.cf.../RTD/cgg/ID/19883/Passover-Kept-at-Temple.htm.

As the first article describes, archaeological findings confirm that the animal slaughter was on a truly massive scale. It was the very heart of the entire economy of Jerusalem. Pilgrims came from far and wide, bringing animals to be sacrificed or purchasing them locally.

I'm guessing that you, like me, have never really tried to picture what this obscene system would have looked like, day after day. Suffice it to say, I would've moved to Detroit.

Does this really strike you as something believably associated with the creator of the universe? Or is it more in the vein of every other system of pagan sacrifice to some imaginary deity, from Jupiter to Moloch to Quetzalcoatl? It is arguably (but only just barely) more civilized in that children and virgins at least weren't sacrificed, but I find it impossible to associate this obscene system with any notion of a creator of the universe.

Ergo, I reject the entire "sacrificial" understanding of Jesus' death. It's simply too absurd to be believed. Jesus himself, of course, didn't use the term sacrifice. He said his death was a "ransom for many," Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45. (Ransom is an equally problematical term, and those who focus on it have always struggled with the issue of to whom this ransom would have been paid – Satan being the likely candidate, but this is hardly a satisfying answer. Most discussions simply gloss over the massive difference between a ransom and a sacrifice and pretend ransom really means sacrifice.)

I personally have been seeking some minimalist understanding of Jesus and his mission that isn't completely at odds with my innate, intuitive idea of what a creator of the universe could possibly be like. The sacrificial system of the OT, and Jesus' death as the ultimate fulfillment of that system, ain't it.

(My problem with attempting to avoid forums is that I persistently wake up with ideas such as these seemingly planted in my mind and something like a compulsion to express them for those who may have ears to hear. In Christian wacko terms, I'm beginning to think I may actually be - wait for it - inspired!)

 

[Mr E]

It's standard orthodoxy that Jesus had to be sinless and perfect in order to be an acceptable sacrifice for the sins of humanity. If he wasn't born of a virgin or ever looked at a woman with lust, God's entire plan goes poof. We're told that the OT system of animal sacrifice was a prefiguring of the ultimate sacrifice of God's own son.

Ever think about this? Ever think about the absolutely obscene OT system of sacrifice?

"Some passages in the [OT] depict priests wading up to their knees in blood, and others describe 1.2 million animals being slaughtered on one day. And the ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus also describes an enormous slaughtering operation." https://www.nbcnews.com/sciencemain...powered-ancient-jerusalems-economy-8c11073738.

1 Kings 8:62-63 tells us that Solomon slaughtered 22,000 cattle and 120,000 sheep and goats at the dedication of the Temple.

Josephus records that in 4 BC over 250,000 lambs were sacrificed for the Passover. Joachim Jeremias, in Jerusalem in the Times of Jesus, calculates that the three courses of priests on duty during the two-hour period for sacrifice during Passover could slay "only" 18,000 lambs, meaning the other 232,000 were likely slain by individuals in their own homes. See https://www.bibletools.org/index.cf.../RTD/cgg/ID/19883/Passover-Kept-at-Temple.htm.

As the first article describes, archaeological findings confirm that the animal slaughter was on a truly massive scale. It was the very heart of the entire economy of Jerusalem. Pilgrims came from far and wide, bringing animals to be sacrificed or purchasing them locally.

I'm guessing that you, like me, have never really tried to picture what this obscene system would have looked like, day after day. Suffice it to say, I would've moved to Detroit.

Does this really strike you as something believably associated with the creator of the universe? Or is it more in the vein of every other system of pagan sacrifice to some imaginary deity, from Jupiter to Moloch to Quetzalcoatl? It is arguably (but only just barely) more civilized in that children and virgins at least weren't sacrificed, but I find it impossible to associate this obscene system with any notion of a creator of the universe.

Ergo, I reject the entire "sacrificial" understanding of Jesus' death. It's simply too absurd to be believed. Jesus himself, of course, didn't use the term sacrifice. He said his death was a "ransom for many," Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45. (Ransom is an equally problematical term, and those who focus on it have always struggled with the issue of to whom this ransom would have been paid – Satan being the likely candidate, but this is hardly a satisfying answer. Most discussions simply gloss over the massive difference between a ransom and a sacrifice and pretend ransom really means sacrifice.)

I personally have been seeking some minimalist understanding of Jesus and his mission that isn't completely at odds with my innate, intuitive idea of what a creator of the universe could possibly be like. The sacrificial system of the OT, and Jesus' death as the ultimate fulfillment of that system, ain't it.

(My problem with attempting to avoid forums is that I persistently wake up with ideas such as these seemingly planted in my mind and something like a compulsion to express them for those who may have ears to hear. In Christian wacko terms, I'm beginning to think I may actually be - wait for it - inspired!)

An honest inquiry.

There's a reason why I reject the premise that Jesus was a religious Jew. He did not comply. He did not subscribe.

He went into the temple courts and upset apple carts. Unsubscribe. My Father's house??? This. is. not. it.

 

[O'Darby III]

An honest inquiry.

There's a reason why I reject the premise that Jesus was a religious Jew. He did not comply. He did not subscribe.

He went into the temple courts and upset apple carts. Unsubscribe. My Father's house??? This. is. not. it.

The speculation of Bart Ehrman and other scholars is that the message of the Temple incident is not what we think. It had to do with the fact that Roman coins with images of the emperor could not be used in the Temple, so poor pilgrims had to purchase (at a premium) special coins with an exceptionally high silver content that were acceptable. Hence the term "money changers." By this theory, Jesus' wrath was less about defiling the house of God with commerce than about gouging the poor. As my post above indicates, the entire sacrificial system pretty much was the commerce of Jerusalem.

Whatever else one may think of Brother Bart, he is a first-class NT scholar whose views are shared by many other NT scholars. His view is that Jesus was precisely an apocalyptic Jew who, like other apocalyptic Jews, thought the literal Kingdom of God was on the immediate horizon and who was preaching a message not of salvation but of the need to repent and begin walking the path of righteousness NOW, before the Kingdom arrived. Ehrman believes Jesus may actually have thought he was the Messiah in the worldly sense the Jews anticipated (i.e., a king who would defeat all others, including the Romans, and restore the House of David) and may have been sharing this secretly with his disciples. He believes this may be the secret Judas revealed and the sole reason Jesus was cruficied. The Romans would not have cared if some nutcase thought he was the future cosmic king of the Jews, but they damn well would have cared if he was teaching that he actually was the anticipated king who would overthrow the Romans in the here and now. That was sedition and could not be tolerated for one moment. The subsequent Jewish revolt by a would-be Messiah in 132 AD - the Bar Kokhba revolt, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt - in which thousands of Roman troops and hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed, showed what could have happened.

 

[Mr E]

Does this really strike you as something believably associated with the creator of the universe? Or is it more in the vein of every other system of pagan sacrifice to some imaginary deity, from Jupiter to Moloch to Quetzalcoatl? It is arguably (but only just barely) more civilized in that children and virgins at least weren't sacrificed, but I find it impossible to associate this obscene system with any notion of a creator of the universe.

According to the testimony of Stephen-- that's exactly what was going on. But it's not just Stephen's perspective. He is quoting scripture.

Stephen, talking about Moses, and retelling the story says this>>> The details are important. He doesn't say that God appeared and spoke to Moses....

After forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the desert of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning bush.
It's this angel that Moses immediately starts referring to as his lord-- which is where the translators get the whole LORD idea from that they purportedly substitute in place of YHWH in scripture. It's very suspect. --But Moses thinks this angel is his lord and indeed that is the claim that this messenger of light is making.

Stephen goes on....

God sent (Moses) as both ruler and deliverer through the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush.
Who did Moses meet with on Mt Sinai?
This is the man who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our ancestors, and he received living oracles to give to you.

And concerning this whole idea of sacrificing animals? Stephen says that they were sacrificing to Molech and Rephan for forty years! Not once, in error.... the whole time!

--- as it is written in the book of the prophets: ‘It was not to me that you offered slain animals and sacrifices forty years in the wilderness, was it, house of Israel? But you took along the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of the god Rephan, the images you made to worship, but I will deport you beyond Babylon.

 

[Mr E]

He's quoting Amos 5:25 -- a prophet who records God as saying>>>

You did not bring me sacrifices and grain offerings during the 40 years you spent in the wilderness, family of Israel.

Amos calls what they were carrying around in the tent- images/idols of their elohim.

 

[Mr E]

The repercussions of this understanding are enormous. To believe Stephen (and Jesus) was to endanger your life.

It cost Stephen his-- on the spot.

He ended with a condemnation of the whole temple system, saying--

It was Moses who told you that his God had told him to make a copy of the temple he had shown by this angel. And David wanted to build a proper house, then his son Solomon finally did.... all that was based on what Moses taught of God....

Yet the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands.


Stephen's final words--

You received the law by decrees given by angels, but you did not obey it.”

 

[O'Darby III]

FWIW, here is a pretty good summary of "The Testimony of Stephen," https://s3.amazonaws.com/reviveschool/KLM+Teaching+Notes/Week+49/ReviveSchool_Lesson007_Notes.pdf.

The one thing that gives me pause about Moses' encounter being anything other than a genuine one is the sheer perfection of the answer "I AM THAT I AM." I don't need a name like Fred or Big Daddy. I'm the only God there is, pal. All you and the Israelites need to know is that I AM. It's almost too perfect to have been invented.

 

[Mr E]

FWIW, here is a pretty good summary of "The Testimony of Stephen," https://s3.amazonaws.com/reviveschool/KLM+Teaching+Notes/Week+49/ReviveSchool_Lesson007_Notes.pdf.

The one thing that gives me pause about Moses' encounter being anything other than a genuine one is the sheer perfection of the answer "I AM THAT I AM." I don't need a name like Fred or Big Daddy. I'm the only God there is, pal. All you and the Israelites need to know is that I AM. It's almost too perfect to have been invented.

Satan, we are told -masquerades- as an angel of light. If there's anyone who would answer the 'Who should I say sent me?" question, the claim of Me! God! I AM!--- it's not God.

“Look how you have fallen from the sky,
O shining one, son of the dawn!
You have been cut down to the ground,
O conqueror of the nations!

You said to yourself,
‘I will climb up to the sky.
Above the stars of El
I will set up my throne.
I will rule on the mountain of assembly
on the remote slopes of Zaphon.

I will climb up to the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High!’

 

[SteVen]

Good topic, thanks!

Does this really strike you as something believably associated with the creator of the universe? Or is it more in the vein of every other system of pagan sacrifice to some imaginary deity, from Jupiter to Moloch to Quetzalcoatl? It is arguably (but only just barely) more civilized in that children and virgins at least weren't sacrificed, but I find it impossible to associate this obscene system with any notion of a creator of the universe.

Yes, that's a bit much!
I know there are different doctrines of the Atonement.
That may may be worth revisiting.

]