America: The cursed burnt offering for the age to come.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

m not aware of the reversal in the Hebrew Isaiah. Either way, Im convinced that Lamb of God refers to atoning sacrafice. Ive never heard of an alternative interpretation that flows with the Bible as a whole.

Let me quote what you put in your post.

There are two different words in use here: lamb ("seh") and sheep ("rachel"). Lamb refers to the slaughter, sheep refers to Jesus silence.

Acts 8:32
This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading: "He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

Acts is quoting the Septuagint version which in the Greek.
"Sheep" and "Lamb" are in reversed positions between the two versions, the Masoretic Hebrew, and the Septuagint Greek.
lamb → slaughter vs. lamb → shearing

a reply to: jmdewey60


In light of your last post consider Jesus clear indications, as part of His "fulfilling the law and the prophets" focus on Leviticus that I posted above.

When Jesus healed a leper, He told the man to go show himself to the priests and offer the gift according to Moses law for same type healing to the priest in Leviticus 14.

Now considering the man was already healed when he came to the priests Jesus was clearing pointing at himself as not just healer but sacrifice. Jesus was saying and showing that He was the fulfillment of the Leviticus requirement but not in type but in reality. Not only that but that He fulfilled the role of High Priest Himself.

a reply to: jmdewey60

The Eunuch was reading the Septuagint, because that is what was available to him at that time, but the Septuagint is not God inspired scripture, it is a translation. While I believe it is a good translation (I own a copy), it does have errors: the Apocrypha, the numerical data in Genesis 5, etc. I trust the metered Hebrew texts over the Septuagint.

Edit:

I would think its more logical to sheer a sheep and slaughter the lamb, not the other way around.

a reply to: Logarock

Lev 14:25

And he shall kill the lamb of the trespass offering, and the priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot:

I looked into this last night.
The entire chapter is devoted to people being ceremonially made "cleansed" after recovering from a skin condition.
It does involve lambs and apparently blood from them for some sort of bodily anointing.
I don't think that it fits in with what I was asking about, which was some sort of atonement by killing lambs.

a reply to: Logarock

Lev 4:35

And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven..

The animal specified for this sin offering is a goat.
Here you have a provision made for an alternative sacrificial animal, this being a lamb.
Food offerings are burnt to appease the deity, and the fat from the lamb is placed on the food offerings to be burnt, apparently to have a pleasing aroma to the food in general.
The priest in this scenario does the actual atonement, with the outcome of "it shall be forgiven him" whatever that inadvertent sin was.

Rev 12:11

And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

They triumphed over him
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony;
they did not love their lives so much
as to shrink from death.
(2011 NIV)
Obviously here "the lamb" is a figurative reference to those "our brothers and sisters" mentioned in verse 10, those who testified without regard to their own lives.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriestWhat got this line of questioning going was an earlier post by you where you said,

Above all of this, John the baptist called Jesus the Lamb of God. The same title is used repeatedly in the book of Revelation. The spotless lamb was slaughtered as an atoning sacrifice. That means death.

As it turns out, by what Logarock quoted in Leviticus 4, there is some sort of possible involvement of a lamb in fixing a problem concerning particular individual sins in this hypothetical world of the 'camp in the wilderness' of the immigrants from Egypt described in the Old Testament.
You went on to say in your earlier post that

There is no logical way to separate Jesus' work from the OT Law. Jesus knew His fate, and He came to fulfill it.

which seems to imply that Jesus was a participant in some sort of the Old Testament style ritual of atonement with himself being the sacrificial offering.
I don't think that the New Testament makes that connection.
Why is it that in the story in Acts where Philip interprets the scripture, that the Eunuch was reading Isaiah 53's mention of a lamb in relation to the Suffering Servant story, rather than his reading Leviticus' mention of a lamb having its fat burned in the fire?

The Eunuch was reading the Septuagint, because that is what was available to him at that time, but the Septuagint is not God inspired scripture, it is a translation.

Could it be that the reason he was reading the Septuagint was that it was in Greek (the common language of the eastern Roman Empire), where the Hebrew was in what had already been a dead language for hundreds of years at that point?
As for the Septuagint being a translation, that is a theory, and not an established fact.

While I believe it is a good translation (I own a copy), it does have errors: the Apocrypha, the numerical data in Genesis 5, etc. I trust the metered Hebrew texts over the Septuagint.

The Masoretic text was finalized in the fourth century AD, so it is a cleaned up and standardized version that does not verify that the older Hebrew was any less problematic than the Greek versions.

I would think its more logical to sheer a sheep and slaughter the lamb, not the other way around.

I don't know if logic comes into play, but my point is that there is an ambiguity here.
Slaughter can involve a bull calf, a goat, or a sheep.
Sheering is specific to lambs or sheep, that particular species, whatever the age happens to be.
Greek being the language of the New Testament, there is a sort of natural tendency probably towards the Greek version of the Old Testament, so in that case, the sheep or lamb, is connected with the shearing part of Isaiah 53, so the reference by John the Baptist to a lamb is as likely as not to be directly aimed at that particular prophecy, rather than to levitical law.
And the "of God" part is also a likely reference to the messianic quality of the Suffering Servant.

a reply to: Logarock

In light of your last post consider Jesus clear indications, as part of His "fulfilling the law and the prophets" focus on Leviticus that I posted above.

I can see how this could be something that someone may want to grasp at out of desperation to support a failed theory of salvation based on a scheme of substitutionary death as payment for sins, but my comment would be that I fail to see any such interpretation made like that in the New Testament.
If that scheme was somehow correct, I think that it would have been important enough to receive some mention.

As I interpret Jesus' saying that he was to fulfill the Law and Prophets, it is specified in the verses preceding that saying:
verse 3
Heirs to the kingdom of heaven.
verse 4
Comfort for the mournful.
verse 5
Inherit the earth.
verse 6
Filled with righteousness.
verse 7
Being shown mercy.
verse 8
Will see God.
verse 9
Called children of God.
verse 10
Theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

When Jesus healed a leper, He told the man to go show himself to the priests and offer the gift according to Moses law for same type healing to the priest in Leviticus 14.

Which is described in chapter 4 of Leviticus.

Now considering the man was already healed when he came to the priests . . .

As prescribed in the aforementioned chapter. The priest's part comes into play after the symptoms are gone.

. . . Jesus was clearing pointing at himself as not just healer but sacrifice.

You lost me here. You seem to have skipped some steps in the logic.

Jesus was saying and showing that He was the fulfillment of the Leviticus requirement but not in type but in reality.

How so?

Not only that but that He fulfilled the role of High Priest Himself.

Hmm, all this from that one story?

a reply to: jmdewey60

You talk about the exodus as if it never happened. If the exodus never occured, then Jesus' ministry had no foundation. Then, you act as though the Septuagint is the original OT. How can you support the idea that a Hebrew speaking race would record their laws in Greek. That makes no sense. The Hebrews preserved their Law in an oral tradition, memorizing syllable patterns.

As I said before, the syllable metering of the Greek NT mirrors the metering in the OT. The Masoretic texts are mathematically preserved. The Septuagint does not reflect this pattern.

As for the 'Lamb of God' issue, I cant make you see what you refuse to see. The NT repeats multiple times that Jesus was our sacrafice for permanent atonement. I will not cite those verses again. You can find them yourself.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

You talk about the exodus as if it never happened.

I think that the legal issues described in these books reflect more the ceremonial norms in the later temple times.

If the exodus never occurred, then Jesus' ministry had no foundation.

I don't think that Jesus' mission was dependent on the nuances of Levitical laws.

Then, you act as though the Septuagint is the original OT.

I think that there is evidence that will support that idea.

How can you support the idea that a Hebrew speaking race would record their laws in Greek. That makes no sense. The Hebrews preserved their Law in an oral tradition, memorizing syllable patterns.

Which was it, written, or oral?

As for the 'Lamb of God' issue, I cant make you see what you refuse to see.

I just made some arguments today against your position.
Do you have any answer to any of them?
These are serious questions and if you are right, I think you would have some sort of response.

The NT repeats multiple times that Jesus was our sacrafice for permanent atonement. I will not cite those verses again. You can find them yourself.

Right, Jesus gave up his life in the process of bringing about a new system for people to be truly righteous through the spirit that Jesus can give us from God.
When we are behaving in a righteous way, then that atones for our earlier sinful state, and we are then forgiven.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: Logarock

Lev 4:35

And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven..

The animal specified for this sin offering is a goat.
Here you have a provision made for an alternative sacrificial animal, this being a lamb.
Food offerings are burnt to appease the deity, and the fat from the lamb is placed on the food offerings to be burnt, apparently to have a pleasing aroma to the food in general.
The priest in this scenario does the actual atonement, with the outcome of "it shall be forgiven him" whatever that inadvertent sin was.

Rev 12:11

And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

They triumphed over him
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony;
they did not love their lives so much
as to shrink from death.
(2011 NIV)
Obviously here "the lamb" is a figurative reference to those "our brothers and sisters" mentioned in verse 10, those who testified without regard to their own lives.

Obviously not. There is no logical way to extrapolate that from the text for several reasons. The Lamb is the Lamb. Your rendering here would be that they overcame with their own blood their own lives. They followed their master, even by your rendering, to death, He being the Chief and primary Lamb and foundational atoning work to which they are found worthy to take part in. And so give their lives in kind but not to a lending of their own ultimate atonement but rather demonstrating their worthiness to partake.

On the above part of your response what we see is that leprosy cleansing falls under the category of a sin offering. Healing of the condition is a result but not separated from a price given for sin. In the case of the poor, instead of a lamb, birds were allowed to be used which signifies a spiritual jubilee, the free bird fly's free from its debt and one is killed in its stead, the jubilee of the impoverished soul.

You asked how so in another response. The leper shows up already healed, without giving an offering yet. The significance here is that the sacrifice gave authority to the healing. Thus Christ the authoritative Lamb healing in kind even before his death as the animals before Christ gave same in kind and to earnest for the coming day of the Lamb. Which for this leper had come.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: Logarock

Lev 14:25

And he shall kill the lamb of the trespass offering, and the priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot:

I looked into this last night.
The entire chapter is devoted to people being ceremonially made "cleansed" after recovering from a skin condition.
It does involve lambs and apparently blood from them for some sort of bodily anointing.
I don't think that it fits in with what I was asking about, which was some sort of atonement by killing lambs.

Apparently, this ritual is not solely a cleaning from a physical condition but suggests a condition due to sin. (Note the prophets aid that was struck with leprosy for theft of a certain kind, making profit from doing the Lords work and the lepers at the Syrian camp that came to there senses and said "lest some worse sin fall on us").

a reply to: Logarock

Your rendering here would be that they overcame with their own blood their own lives.

Exactly. That's what it says.
How is it that you have a problem with that, unless you were taught at some point earlier that a "lamb" can only be Jesus.
What evidence would you have for that?
As far as I am concerned, Revelation was the first book written of all those we have today in the New Testament.
That being the case, it is not dependent on things Paul wrote, or what it says in any of the Gospels.

They followed their master, even by your rendering, to death, He being the Chief and primary Lamb and foundational atoning work to which they are found worthy to take part in.

What "atoning work" are you talking about?
I don't know how literal the "unto death" part is, and rather see it as an attitude of not going along with questionable practices in order to be popular.
Jesus, just by being righteous, is the "soothing aroma" for atonement.
"Atonement" apparently meaning to smooth things over to restore a relationship.

And so give their lives in kind but not to a lending of their own ultimate atonement but rather demonstrating their worthiness to partake.

It is really more about being righteous.

On the above part of your response what we see is that leprosy cleansing falls under the category of a sin offering.

Not sure what you are referencing, but the interpretation of the thing in chapter 4 of Leviticus is problematic and seems to be a word adaptable to whatever use it needs to be applied to. There is probably an unsaid accepted concept that for a wrong, there needs to be a recompense (with the idea that his medical condition was a punishment for some past sin), but in practical terms, it seems to be more like a "priestly tax" to pay for the services rendered in certifying the "cleanness" of the patient.

Healing of the condition is a result but not separated from a price given for sin. In the case of the poor, instead of a lamb, birds were allowed to be used . . .

OK, you seem to have jumped over to chapter 5. Rather than a "price" like paying for a sin, it seems that what is going on is that a priest has some sort of power to intervene between a person with a problem, and God. In order to be accepted and heard, he needs to have burning bodies that God will be attracted to, then the priest can work his magic.

. . . which signifies a spiritual jubilee, the free bird fly's free from its debt and one is killed in its stead, the jubilee of the impoverished soul.

I don't know where you are reading this but in Leviticus 5, the birds are killed, one burnt, and the other probably eaten by the priests.

You asked how so in another response. The leper shows up already healed, without giving an offering yet. The significance here is that the sacrifice gave authority to the healing.

What sacrifice? Are you saying that Jesus being sacrificed is applied retroactively to previous events?
I think you are going off on tangents based on faulty interpretations of Jesus' acts.
That is the whole thing that I am getting at, Jesus is not a sacrifice with magical powers.
There wasn't any magic powers to any sacrifices described in the Bible.
The animals died so their parts could be used for certain things. Burnt, eaten, and sprinkling or dripping with the blood. Almost all the blood was dumped, probably in what amounted to a well cut out from the temple platform to soak into the earth below the base stones.
Its based on old beliefs that somehow the deity could drink the blood from where people could not get at it.
Part of the blood is applied to the altar as the symbolic receptacle to transfer something from the animal onto the temple as if it was a sort of entity itself.
The priests serve as vehicles for the transference.
Eventually, the temple had to be atoned for as if it was by transference the sinner.

a reply to: jmdewey60

We have done more than enough to back up our statements. How about you start citing some scripture that says you are right? I havnt seen much more than talk from you.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

How about you start citing some scripture that says you are right?

Who do you mean, when you say "we", you and Logarock?
I looked through the thread to see where this side issue discussion started and found on page 13, Logarock saying that

"One major problem with this is that sacrifices of blemish free and a whole nature were not abominations but were a Christ type, not an antichrist type."

I don't think that I commented on that particular post but it is indicative of the sort of ideas that I have been attacking in the last few pages on this thread.
Here Logarock is expressing this theory that Jesus was the anti-type, and the type was the unblemished lamb that was sacrificed to make atonement for sins.
The corollary to that theory being that Jesus' death is therefore payment for sins, and since Jesus is "better" than a mere animal, his sacrifice was not for just a sin, but for every sin that was committed by all the people who subsequently believed in that sacrifice.
I think that some adherents to that theory add on a stipulation that in order for someone to be "saved", he has to believe in this theoretical mechanism for forgiveness, otherwise they are still burdened by "sin guilt" and then therefore cannot go to Heaven.
My response has been that if any of this was true, that I think that it would be important enough to be mentioned in the Bible.
So your request is for me to cite verses that will somehow prove a negative, since my claim is that there is a severe scarcity of verses that affirm this theory or its corollary or its additional stipulation.