Text Size
   
Dec 16
Sunday
English Croatian Serbian Slovak Slovenian

Did God Allow Noah To Eat Meat?

The passage of Genesis 9:2-4 was the subject of great debate and controversy. After years of study and research and virtually leaving no stone unturned on the subject, to date I have not read a commentary on the passage which is worthy of a serious consideration. Generally it is argued that here we have the first biblical passage where God explicitly told Noah that he may kill any animal he wanted to in order to eat its flesh. Even vegetarians who abhor meat eating and who practice vegetarianism on ethical grounds admit that here we are faced with a biblical text which clearly sanctions the killing of animals and eating of their flesh. All they can say is that due to the fallen and corrupt nature of humanity God gave a “concession” concerning meat diet but it was not His ideal as in Genesis 1:30 where God ideally prescribed a completely vegetarian diet. But nothing can be further from the truth.
 

Main Menu

Who's Online

We have 64 guests online

Did Jesus Eat Fish?

 There is only one passage in the whole of the New Testament where it is explicitly and specifically said that Jesus actually ate meat. If this text is true and genuine and in fact inspired by the Holy Spirit, then it would follow that Jesus was not and could not have been a vegetarian. But if on the other hand it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that this passage in Luke 24 is actually a forgery, then it follows that Jesus must have been a vegetarian, since a lying hand felt a need to insert a lying passage in order to portray Jesus as a carnivorous being.

The Meaning of Sacrifice from the Christian Perspective PDF Print E-mail
Written by Administrator   
Sunday, 25 November 2018 01:01

Virtually all Christians believe and maintain that the sin offerings of the Jewish Pentateuch were typical of the sacrifice of Jesus. The word “typical” means:

“conforming to, exhibiting, or indicating the character, qualities, attributes, or nature characteristic of or peculiar to a particular type. Of the nature of or constituting a type.”

Thus we are to believe that the sin offerings of the falsified Jewish Pentateuch typified or symbolized the sacrifice of Jesus. If you carefully study the sacrificial system of the Old Testament and all the references to the same in the New – especially in the Book of Hebrews  – you will realize that there are enormous problems and difficulties once we accept the principal of typology between the so called Mosaic sin offerings and the offering of Jesus.

The Hebrew word used in the Jewish Pentateuch and elsewhere for the purification or sin offering is “hattat.” The first most fundamental principle of the Book of Hebrews is that there can be no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood [Hebrews 9:22]. According to this principle atonement or remission or forgiveness of sin can be obtained only through a bloody sacrifice or a bloody sin offering. This principle and argument of the author of Hebrews [and virtually all Christians] does not agree with the principal and instructions allegedly given by God in the Jewish Torah. Leviticus 4 gives us a detailed account which deals explicitly with a sin offering. The offering had to be presented according to the rank or status of the individual in the community. If the priest sinned he had to present a young bull [verse 3]. If the whole Israelite community sinned the same victim was prescribed [verse 14]. If a leader sinned he had to present a male goat [verse 23]. The first three laws or principles were non-negotiable.

 Neither the priest nor the community or the prominent leader could make a substitute and present a victim of a lesser ranking. This is due to the fact that the legislator of this law regarded the priest, the whole community and the prominent leader wealthy enough to present the prescribed victims.

If however an average Israelite person sinned, he was obligated to present a female goat [signifying a lesser rank of both the offerer and the offering]. The offerer had to lay his own hand on the animal and slaughter it personally. The offerer was also allowed to bring a female lamb as a substitute for the female goat. The procedure was the same. He had to lay his hand on the animal and slaughter it personally [verses 27-31].

If an ordinary person could not afford to offer a female goat or a lamb then he was required to offer two doves or young pigeons [Leviticus 5:7]. If a person could not even afford these victims then he was to bring an oblation or bloodless sacrifice. Please note the text of Leviticus 5:11-13:

But if he can't afford two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he shall bring his offering for that in which he has sinned, the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering. He shall put no oil on it, neither shall he put any frankincense on it, for it is a sin offering. He shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as the memorial portion, and burn it on the altar, on the offerings of Yahweh made by fire. It is a sin offering. The priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin that he has sinned in any of these things, and he will be forgiven; and the rest shall be the priest's, as the meal offering.

It is therefore apparent that the author of the Book of Hebrews was mistaken and that the Jewish Pentateuch does teach that sin can be forgiven and atoned for without the shedding of blood. The next thing very apparent in the Book of Hebrews is the fact that the author believed and taught that the blood of Jesus did not and could not cleanse all sins indiscriminately. The author taught that only inherent sin [of Adam] and those committed in ignorance were atoned for by the bloody sacrifice of Jesus. His argument is based on the fact that Jesus died only once in order to atone for sin.

Please note the text of Hebrews 6:4-6:

For concerning those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance; seeing they crucify the Son of God for themselves again, and put him to open shame.

I will now demonstrate very clearly that the author of the Book of Hebrews believed that the blood of Jesus could atone only for the sins committed in ignorance just as was the case with the sin offering in the Jewish Pentateuch. This truth is seldom realized due to the fact that Christian preachers continually teach that works do not play an important role in a Christian’s life but only the faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus.

We are generally taught that virtually any sin committed after baptism and “enlightenment” can be forgiven and washed away by the “blood of Jesus.” I will here demonstrate that this was not taught by those who adhered to the sacrificial cultus of the Jewish Pentateuch.

The word “enlightenment” is crucial in this text. The author said:

it is impossible to renew them again to repentance.

The words  “enlightenment” and “illuminated” are synonymous.  Illumination or enlightenment was always associated with baptism. St. Crysostom of the 4th century wrote:

“Heretics have baptism, not illumination: they are baptized in body, but not enlightened in soul: as Simon Magus was baptized, but not illuminated.”

The word “enlightened” comes from the Greek word “photizo” which was translated as “enlightened,” “illuminated”  and “make to see” in the King James Bible. The word appears in Ephesians 3:9 and is translated “make to see.” In 2 Timothy 1:10 the word “photizo” was translated  “made manifest.” Dr. Spiros Zodhiates in his Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament plainly states that the word “photizo” means:

“to illuminate, make one see or understand, to bring to light, to understand.”

The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon on p. 663 defines the word as follows:

“to enlighten, illumine; render evident; become clear; to give understanding to.”

Therefore the author of Hebrews 6:4-6 believed and taught that no sin can be forgiven after the person was enlightened and received knowledge. That is, he taught that no sin committed with knowledge and understanding can be forgiven. In Hebrews 10:26-30 the author of Hebrews makes his point even more clearer and forceful:

“No sacrifices can be made for people who decide to sin after they find out about the truth. They are God’s enemies. And all they can look forward to is a terrible judgment and a furious fire. If two or more witnesses accused someone of breaking the Law of Moses, that person could be put to death. But it is much worse to dishonour God’s Son and to disgrace the blood of the promise  that made us holy. And it’s just as bad to insult the Holy Spirit, who shows us mercy [The Bible for Today].

Now please note the same text in the Jerusalem Bible:

“If, after we have been given knowledge of the truth, we should deliberately commit any sins, then there is no longer any sacrifice for them. There will be left only the dreadful prospect of judgment and of the raging fire that is to burn rebels. Anyone who disregards the Law of Moses is ruthlessly put to death on the word of two witnesses or three; and you may be sure that anyone who tramples on the Son of God, and who treats the blood of the covenant which sanctified him as if it were not holy, and who insults the Spirit of grace, will be condemned to a far severer punishment.”

Both texts of the Book of Hebrews indisputably prove that the author believed in and actually based his argument on the principle of the Mosaic sacrifices. What most Christians do not know, but the author of Hebrews was of course aware, is the fact that the blood of animals in the Jewish Pentateuch could never atone for any sin consciously committed.

That is, the sacrificial cultus of the Old Testament provided atonement only for the sins committed in ignorance. Any sin committed voluntarily could not be atoned for but the person had to be killed for his sin. There was no prescribed sacrifice which could atone for the sin committed with knowledge. I have already referred to the 4th and 5th chapters of Leviticus earlier. But I did not point out the fact that the sin offering prescribed there could only atone for the unintentional sin. Please note the following clear statements:

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them” [4:1-2 King James Bible].

The rules that follow I have already covered earlier. Here is its summary. A priest who sinned without intending to had to bring a young bull as his sin offering in order to atone for his unintentional sin. The whole community which sinned unawares or unintentionally had to bring the same victim. The ruler who sinned unintentionally had to present a male goat for his atonement of sin. Any other person who sinned unintentionally had to bring a female goat or a lamb.

If they could not afford it they had to bring two doves or two young pigeons. If they could not even afford these victims then they were obligated to present an oblation in order to atone for their unintentional sin. There was simply no prescribed sacrifice for the intentional sin. Not only so, but the Jewish Pentateuch explicitly states that there can be no atonement for any intentional sin. Numbers 15 also gives a detailed account of the atonement for unintentional sins. Then in verses 29-30 we are told that whoever sins in ignorance should not be killed since the sacrifice for sin covers his sin. But whoever sins with knowledge no remedy for sin. The person must be put to death.

The death penalty was applied on anyone who broke even one single command with knowledge or “presumptuously” – as King James Bible puts it. The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary on p. 739, sec. “sin offering”  states:

“The Sin Offering: This was for sins unconsciously and unintentionally committed…For conscious and deliberate violations of the Law no atonement was possible.”

Numbers 15:32-36 lists one conscious or presumptuous sin. Even though the sin appears to be very insignificant the author states that there was no remedy or sacrificial atonement possible. The offender had to be put to death. The offender was killed for merely gathering firewood on the Sabbath. He however, according to the author, was aware that such an act was prohibited. His sin therefore was not committed in ignorance. Elsewhere we find that anyone who desecrated the Sabbath had to be put to death. There was no remedy or blood atonement possible. Realizing all these facts we are now in a better position to understand the comment of the author of Hebrews.

He clearly based his argument on the principle of the Jewish Pentateuch. We do not know for certain who actually wrote the Book of Hebrews. There is no consensus among the biblical scholars. The style differs from that of Paul and also Paul’s name and personal greeting is absent. The author however had to be a close associate of Paul since he was a friend and an associate of Timothy. He obviously wrote from Italy since he extended greetings from the believers in Italy. From the writings of Paul it appears that he also held the same view as the author of Hebrews. In 1 Timothy 1:12-13 Paul wrote to Timothy that he was forgiven for persecuting the believers only because he did it in ignorance, not knowing that he was doing wrong.

Paul here strongly implies that his sins were forgiven on the basis of Jesus' sacrifice [verse 15] only because his sins were committed in ignorance and not presumptuously. From elsewhere it appears that Paul did not believe that the sacrifice of Jesus could atone for the “great” sins of those who were believers and enlightened in baptism. But it appears that Paul thought that those people who could not claim the atonement for their sins on the basis of Jesus' blood, could somehow be forgiven and ultimately saved through the bloody sacrifice of their own. In 1 Timothy 1:19-20 Paul states that two believing men    Hymenaeus and Alexander – fell from faith. Paul did not recommend that they repent and claim the blood of Jesus but rather he delivered them to Satan in order to learn not to blaspheme. From this text alone it is not clear what “delivering to Satan” means. But when we compare this text with that of 1 Corinthians 5 we get the clearer picture. Among the Corinthian believers there was a believer who apparently had intercourse either with his stepmother or else with one of his father’s wives. As soon as Paul heard of this he instantly condemned the man. Please note verses 3-5:

For I most assuredly, as being absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as though I were present, judged him who has done this thing. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, are to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 

Paul apparently believed that the presumptuous sin of this believer could not be atoned for by his repentance, animal blood or the blood of Jesus. He believed that the only ultimate remedy for this man would be to atone for his sin through his own blood sacrifice. Paul actually learned this practice from the Pharisees. To this day the adherents of rabbinical Judaism believe in the self-sacrifice which alone can atone for the wilful sins. In their official Prayer Book, The Complete Artscroll Siddur, compiled by Rabbi Nosson Scherman, on p. 845, we find the following prayer recited at deathbed:

“I acknowledge before you Hashem, my God and the God of my forefathers, that my recovery and death are in Your hand. May it be Your will that You heal me with total recovery, but, if I die, may my death be an atonement for all the errors, iniquities, and wilful sins that I have erred, sinned and transgressed before You.”

By carefully examining the Old Testament we discover that the true God and the true prophets of His did not identify with the legislator of the Jewish Pentateuch and the sacrificial system. God and the true prophets most certainly did not believe nor did they teach that a sin consciously or presumptuously committed could not be forgiven. Neither did they teach that those who sinned in this manner must be put to death or atone for their sins through their own blood sacrifice.

In Isaiah 1:11-13 we are clearly told that sacrifice and burnt offering was not prescribed by God, as we have already seen. In verses 15-18 God said that the hands of the Israelites were stained with blood and that if their sins were as scarlet they would be as clean as snow. If they were like crimson, they would be like wool.

The Israelites committed great horrors. They served the hinder gods. They worshipped molten images and many idols. They committed adulteries. They committed and continually practiced great evils and completely despised the Holy Law of God. According to the legislator of the Jewish Pentateuch these Israelites should have been put to death  – since there was no sacrifice left to atone for their sins.

But God however repeatedly testified that He was more than willing to forgive and atone for their sin on the basis of His love and mercy alone, if only they were willing to reform their ways and begin to practice righteousness. Ezekiel 18 positively proves that God did not believe in the Jewish Pentateuch nor did He prescribe all those capital punishments we find in the Jewish Torah. A person who commits all the dreadful things and sins listed in this chapter would be declared righteous, if only he would reform his ways and start obeying God's Law.

Virtually every sin mentioned in Ezekiel 18 was subject to capital punishment according to the legislator of the Jewish Pentateuch, yet God was more than glad to forgive these sins, since He did not want anyone to die.

There was a king in Judah by the name of Manasseh. He was the longest reigning king in either Judah or Israel. But he was also the most wicked king  – committing all sort of abominations, as shown in 2 Kings 21. He even sacrificed his son and filled the streets of Jerusalem with blood. Every sin that Manasseh committed – mentioned in this chapter –  called for a capital punishment. You can verify this fact by consulting the prescriptions of the legislator of the Jewish Pentateuch.

God kept sending His prophets to warn Manasseh and the people of Judah. They urged him to return to God. He however refused to listen. Later he was arrested by the Babylonian official and was taken captive to Babylon. In prison however, Manasseh turned to God and begged His forgiveness. God heard his prayer and forgave him all his sins [2 Chronicles 33:10-33].

God is merciful and full of forgiveness. He is our father and He loves His children. He does not need a sacrificial victim nor does He need to see the shedding of blood in order to be moved with compassion and forgive. If we as sinful fathers and mothers forgive our children simply because we really love them, how much more then will God, our heavenly Father, forgive us His children! Those who cannot see or accept this fact must indeed have a blind soul.

Jesus, the Son of God and our elder Brother also believed that God was compassionate and loving – full of mercy and forgiveness. Jesus also rejected the legislation of the Jewish legislator concerning sin offering and the capital punishments. A woman was caught in the act of adultery and then she was brought before Jesus [John 8]. The Pharisees told Jesus that “Moses” commanded in the Law that such people should be stoned to death. They asked Jesus what was his opinion on the subject. Jesus ignored them and began to write with his finger on the ground.

As they continued to annoy him he told them that they can stone the woman to death if they were without sin and perfectly innocent from any crime. Being condemned by their conscience they simply left. Jesus told the woman that he does not condemn her. He charged her to go and sin no more – that is, reform her lifestyle. If God really commanded Moses that such people must be put to death then Jesus most certainly disobeyed and broke the Law of God. 

But if Jesus broke and nullified the Law of God then he most certainly was a transgressor and sinner. But I believe that Jesus was not a sinner and I also have no doubt whatsoever that God did not command that such people should be put to death. God always gave us humans opportunity to repent and alter our sinful ways. Those who repented and reformed their evil ways were more than welcomed by God  – as numerous texts of the Bible and extra-canonical literature testify.

We also know from the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew [often called Gospel of the Nazarenes], that Jesus believed and taught that even the holy prophets were tainted with sin. This passage of Matthew was well known to the early Church Fathers and several of them actually referred to this passage. This is what Jesus actually said:

“If your brother has sinned with a word and has made amends with you, welcome him seven times a day. His follower Simon said to him, Seven times a day? The master answered and said to him, In fact, I tell you, as often as seventy times seven times. For in the prophets also, after they were anointed with the holy spirit, sinful language was found” [Gospel of the Nazoreans 5, Jerome, Against the Pelagians 3.2].

The Book of Revelation plainly reveals that those who committed even great and terrible sins could be forgiven if they would only admit their guilt and repent. Please note the following passages:

But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to throw a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality. So you also have some who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans in the same way. Repent therefore” [Revelation 2:14-15].

But I have this against you, that you tolerate your woman, Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. She teaches and seduces my servants to commit sexual immorality, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her into a bed, and those who commit adultery with her into great oppression, unless they repent of her works” [Revelation 2:20-23].

The keyword with Jesus was “repent.” Repentance and God's love is what blots the sin away and not the blood sacrifice of an animal or Jesus. It is very plain that Jesus did not believe in the Jewish legislation concerning the sin offering and atonement as did Paul and the author of Hebrews. Jesus did not believe that only unintentional sins could be atoned for but he clearly believed and taught that even the sins of idolatry and adultery can be forgiven to them who reform their lifestyle and truly repent.

Jesus addressed himself to the believers and those who were enlightened in baptism. Even though they sinned terribly, Jesus gave them opportunity to repent. The author of Hebrews was therefore gravely mistaken.

All those who acknowledge the text of Hebrews as inspired and infallible, and if they acknowledge the Jewish sacrificial cultus as inspired and infallible, are lost –  because their sins which they commit after their original conversion and baptism cannot be forgiven and atoned for. They can only look forward to the terrible judgment and the punishment with fire. Therefore my dear reader, I urge you to abandon the idea of sacrifice and bloodshed as the means of your atonement and to beg God to forgive you your sins committed presumptuously. He is loving and merciful father and He will most definitely forgive you if you truly reject the blood atonement in your heart. Now it is essential to point out the absurdity involved in the sin offering prescribed in the Jewish Pentateuch and the Christian ludicrous teaching concerning the sacrifice of Jesus and his alleged bloody atonement. Any sacrificial victim chosen for a sacrifice had to be perfect and without any defect. This was especially true of the victim used for the sin offering.

The victim was brought by the offerer to the priest and the altar of the temple. The offerer had to lay his hand on the head of the sacrificial victim and confess his sin or guilt. In this way he identified with the victim and transferred his sin and guilt on the head of the pure and innocent victim.

Although it is evil to kill an animal at least it seems logical that the victim chosen to atone for sin should be pure and blameless. It also seems logical that the sins should be transferred through the laying on of hand or hands. That the laying on of hands on the head of a victim signifies the transference of sin is very obvious from the passage of Leviticus 16:21 where Aaron was instructed to do the following:

“and Aaron shall lay both his hands on 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 on the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a man who is in readiness into the wilderness.”

The moment the offerer laid his hand or hands on the head of his sacrificial victim, all his unintentional sins were transferred to the head of his victim. But the sins were not atoned for until the blood of the victim was shed. Only the shed blood actually atoned for the sin. The author of Hebrews clearly shows that Jesus is the substitute of the Mosaic victim:

then has he said, "Behold, I have come to do your will. He takes away the first, that he may establish the second, by which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Every priest indeed stands day by day ministering and often offering the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins, but he, when he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; henceforth expecting until his enemies to be made the footstool of his feet. For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are sanctified” [Hebrews 10:9-14].

The author argues that Jesus was perfect and sinless    because he did everything God asked him to do. As a perfect sacrifice he atoned for all our past sins with his shed blood. The author was either ignorant or he deliberately ignored the real problem his teaching and that of the Mosaic Torah posed concerning the blood atonement. Before I point out this problem I first of all want to present Paul’s view and teaching on the subject. Paul apparently believed and taught that Jesus was accursed. Please note Galatians 3:13:

http://pixel-geo.prfct.co/cs/?partnerId=pubhttp://pixel-geo.prfct.co/cs/?partnerId=rbcnhttp://pixel-geo.prfct.co/cs/?partnerId=fbxhttp://pixel-geo.prfct.co/seg/?add=4613587&source=js_tag&a_id=56686Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. For it is written, Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.”

Paul obviously did not realize the absurdity and horror of his teaching. Neither did in fact the Jewish legislator of the sacrificial cultus. They believed and maintained that the sacrificial victim had to be perfect and blameless and innocent. For only an innocent and holy victim could be accepted as a substitute and could actually atone for the sins of the offerer. But at the same time through ignorance they have introduced a system where sin is actually atoned for through sin. Paul referred to Deuteronomy 21:22-23. Please note this text quoted from the King James Bible exactly as it is:

“And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; [for he that is hanged is accursed of God;] that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.”

Paul apparently based himself on the rendering of the Greek Septuagint. The Hebrew text is disputable. Not all Bible scholars agree how the Hebrew text should be translated and what is its real meaning. For this reason you will find various renderings of this text in the English Bibles.

I want you to note the text as is translated in the Bible for Today:

“If a criminal is put to death, and you hang the dead body on a tree, you must not let it hang there overnight. Bury it the same day, because the dead body of a criminal will bring God’s curse on the land. The LORD your God is giving this land to you, so don’t make it unclean by leaving the bodies of executed criminals on display.”

Please also note that the ancient Peshitta version differs from that of Hebrew or the Septuagint:

“And if any man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is crucified on a tree, and thus put to death; His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall bury him the same day [for he who shall revile God shall be crucified], and you shall not defile your land, which the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance” [Dr. George Lamsa’s translation of the ancient text].

Paul quoted this text to suit his cause. His interpretation of the text is strongly contested by certain Bible scholars and experts  of philology. If the text means what Paul understood it to mean, then every single person ever crucified or hung on a tree was accursed by God. But for what purpose? If Jesus who was righteous was accursed in order to redeem mankind from the alleged curse of the Law and Adam, for what purpose was Apostle Peter accursed? The tradition tells us that Peter was crucified with his head down. John 21:18-19 says:

“Most assuredly I tell you, when you were young, you dressed yourself, and walked where you wanted to. But when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you, and carry you where you don't want to go.”

If everyone crucified is cursed by God, then how could Peter glorify God by dying on a cross? What about all believing people who were crucified by Nero and other monsters? What about all the babies and young children crucified through the ages –  even as late as World War II? Were all these innocent children also cursed by God? To believe and teach so is not only incongruous but it actually borders on the line of blasphemy. Jesus said that the kingdom of God belongs to little children and that unless we become like little children we shall never obtain salvation. Now please note what else Paul maintained in 2 Corinthians 5:21:

“For he [God] hath made him [Jesus] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him [King James Bible].

Paul believed and acknowledged that Jesus lived a sinless life. But he maintained that while Jesus was hanging on the tree, God actually made Jesus a sinner by transferring all the sins of the world upon himself. Paul is saying that just as an offerer transferred his sin on the sacrificial victim by the laying on of hands, so did God transfer the sins of the whole world upon Jesus. Now Paul and the Jewish legislator were ignorant of the fact that they actually believed in and taught atonement of sin through sin. For both the animal victim of the Mosaic Torah and Jesus himself became defiled, polluted, sinful and impure by the sins transferred upon them. How then could they atone for sin in the sinful condition they were in? How could the blood of Jesus wash away sin when it was actually stained and defiled and became accursed by all the sins of the world? Please remember that the legislator in the Mosaic Torah maintained that anyone who touched anything unclean or polluted or sinful became unclean and had to wash with water and present a sin offering. The duration of their uncleanliness depended upon the decree of their defilement.

Since Paul and virtually all Christians maintain that all the sins of the world were laid on Jesus and that he actually became accursed because of this and that his own Father allegedly abandoned him because of this sinful state and condition, how then was it possible for him to atone for sin and to actually present his sinful and polluted blood in the Holy of Holies in heaven? No, Jesus was not the sacrificial victim of the Mosaic Torah. Nor did he die to atone for the sin of Adam and the world. Nor did he die in order to appease angry God and cool off His wrath.

You may ask, as many have already asked me, why did Jesus then come and why was he crucified if he wasn't a sacrifice for sin? He came to teach and reveal the true God – as Ebionites claimed all along. He was crucified because the Jewish leaders and the Jews in general could not accept his message but regarded him as a blasphemer.

Had the Jews accepted him and his message then they would not have crucified him and all would have been well. Jesus was killed for the same reason that all God's true prophets were killed: the sinful world could not accept their message.

 

Comments (0)Add Comment

Write comment

busy