It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Sinai covenant and the Last Supper

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   
We may learn from scattered details in the Old Testament how covenants were made in Israel.

When two parties make an agreement, the Hebrew phrase is that they “cut” a covenant.
The ritual seems to have been that a sacrificial animal was cut in half and laid upon the ground, in such a way that a gap was left between the two portions.
This was the procedure followed by Abraham in Genesis ch15.
The parties to the agreement would then go between both halves of the animal, along this passage.
The meaning of the rite is explained to us in one of the prophecies given to Jeremiah;
“And the men who transgressed the covenant…which they made before me, I will make like the calf which they cut in two and passed between its parts” –Jeremiah ch34 v18
So they would have passed through the animal in order to identify themselves with it, and they must have made an oath at the same time; “May God treat me in the same way as this (and more also) if I do not keep this agreement”.
The evidence for this oath is that even casual oaths could be expressed in the same words. As in Abner’s angry declaration in 2 Samuel ch3 v9;
“God do so to Abner and more also if I do not…”

When Moses led the people in making the covenant at Sinai (Exodus ch24), the rite had to be managed in a different way.
When one of the parties is a God, and the other party is an entire nation, then “passing between the parts” is no longer practical.
So instead of bringing the covenanting parties to the covenant animal, he took the covenant animal to the two covenanting parties.

He built an altar and offered sacrifice with a number of oxen (with the assistance of “young men of the people of Israel”).
The result was that he had a supply of blood, which would adequately represent the sacrificed animals.
One half of the blood was then thrown against the altar, representing Israel’s God.
So the symbolism was that God had made contact with the animal. God had “passed through”.

Now for the second party.
Gathering the people together, he read them the terms of the agreement, “the book of the covenant”. The writer of this account is probably thinking of one of the collections of law now incorporated into Exodus.
They agreed. “All that the Lord has spoken we will do”.
Moses then took the other half of the blood, collected in basins, and threw it over the people, saying “Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you, in accordance with all these words”.
So the symbolism was that the people of Israel had also made contact with the sacrificed animal. The people had “passed through”.

Now that both parties had “signed the agreement”, in the manner customary at the time, there was a meal to celebrate the event.
Seventy “elders of Israel” had been selected to represent the people as a whole.
Seventy is a very symbolic number. It combines seven (the number which represents God) with ten (the number which represents completeness).
That’s why it keeps appearing in the Bible and Jewish tradition, especially when God is doing something for the world at large . We see the seventy disciples sent out in Luke, the legend of the seventy translators of the Septuagint.
So it’s very interesting that seventy should be the number chosen on this occasion, rather than twelve (the number which represents Israel).

Then this delegation “went up and saw the God of Israel”.
There was a kind of sapphire pavement under his feet, “like the very heaven for clearness”.
This is meant to represent the firmament, the supposed location of God’s throne.
We get similar images elsewhere in the Bible.
Ezekiel saw the Lord on a detached and movable “likeness of a firmament” (Ezekiel ch1 v22).
In Revelation, John was taken up to God’s throne, surrounded by “a sea of glass, like crystal” (Revelation ch4 v6). This, too, is the firmament, the sky seen from above. Another version of the “elders of Israel” was there already.
Strictly speaking, of course, “no man has ever seen God” (1 John ch4 v12), and no man can see him.
At the very most they would have seen an image accommodating itself to their understanding.
Nevertheless, they were meant to understand themselves as “being in the presence of God”.

Safely standing (or possibly sitting) in the presence of God, they ate and drank.

The Last Supper is more commonly associated with the Passover Lamb.
But when Jesus offered round the cup and said “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many” (Mark ch14 v24) or “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke ch22 v20), he was evidently referring back to the words of Moses at Sinai;
“Behold the blood of the covenant”.

Following through the analogy points us towards lessons which might be learned about the significance of the Supper.

Firstly, the death of Jesus is to be understood as marking the starting-point of a covenant, just as the sacrifice of the oxen marked the starting point of the original covenant.

It is a NEW covenant. Even though the text doesn’t always call it that (for most manuscripts of Matthew and Mark don’t include the word), this covenant with God’s people is implicitly replacing or re-modelling the covenant at Sinai.

The reception of the blood is to be understood as uniting the believer with Christ, just as the parties in the old covenant ritual appear to have identified themselves with the covenant sacrifice.
As he says in John; “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him” (John ch6 v56)
While the other party in the covenant (according to the teaching of the Incarnation) is already in union with Christ.
This makes him the covenant mediator who brings the two parties together.

Finally the Supper may be understood as a celebration of the new covenant, like the meal of the elders at Sinai.
And the continuing celebration of the Supper should perhaps be understood in the same way.
“For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death, until he comes” (1 Corinthians ch11 v26).
It is a meal which takes place, like the meal of the elders, in the presence of God.




posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

S&F

Well written and explained...

66 books written by people who for the most part did not know one another AND lived in a different time frames yet each book is like a single chapter inside one book.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 02:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
We may learn from scattered details in the Old Testament how covenants were made in Israel.

When two parties make an agreement, the Hebrew phrase is that they “cut” a covenant.
The ritual seems to have been that a sacrificial animal was cut in half and laid upon the ground, in such a way that a gap was left between the two portions.


That's disturbing. Why would you choose to follow a book who's authors were so stupid? What does killing an animal do to preserve a contract/covenant? Nothing.



This was the procedure followed by Abraham in Genesis ch15.


Abraham twice pimped out his half sister and wife in attempts to gain power, twice got caught and expelled from each nation.

And almost murdered his son and this is considered righteous by his 3 religious descendants.

He was not a good guy.



The parties to the agreement wod then go between both halves of the animal, along this passage.
“And the men who transgressed the covenant…which they made before me, I will make like the calf which they cut in two and passed between its parts” –Jeremiah ch34 v18


Again, disgusting. This Jehovah sounds like a devil. Who would take this seriously? I get it as religion, mythology or anything but Divine Truth. Anybody who perceived this guy as God has to be foolish. It's a story.



So they would have passed through the animal in order to identify themselves with it, and they must have made an oath at the same time; “May God treat me in the same way as this (and more also) if I do not keep this agreement”.
The evidence for this oath is that even casual oaths could be expressed in the same words. As in Abner’s angry declaration in 2 Samuel ch3 v9;
“God do so to Abner and more also if I do not…”


Nothing to learn from this except a lesson in human folly. Oaths are of the Evil One says Jesus so I have to apply that to these people and Jehovah if I want to be a disciple.



When Moses led the people in making the covenant at Sinai (Exodus ch24), the rite had to be managed in a different way.
When one of the parties is a God, and the other party is an entire nation, then “passing between the parts” is no longer practical.
So instead of bringing the covenanting parties to the covenant animal, he took the covenant animal to the two covenanting parties.

He built an altar and offered sacrifice with a number of oxen (with the assistance of “young men of the people of Israel”).
The result was that he had a supply of blood, which would adequately represent the sacrificed animals.
One half of the blood was then thrown against the altar, representing Israel’s God.
So the symbolism was that God had made contact with the animal. God had “passed through”.

Now for the second party.
Gathering the people together, he read them the terms of the agreement, “the book of the covenant”. The writer of this account is probably thinking of one of the collections of law now incorporated into Exodus.
They agreed. “All that the Lord has spoken we will do”.
Moses then took the other half of the blood, collected in basins, and threw it over the people, saying “Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you, in accordance with all these words”.
So the symbolism was that the people of Israel had also made contact with the sacrificed animal. The people had “passed through”.

Now that both parties had “signed the agreement”, in the manner customary at the time, there was a meal to celebrate the event.
Seventy “elders of Israel” had been selected to represent the people as a whole.
Seventy is a very symbolic number. It combines seven (the number which represents God) with ten (the number which represents completeness).
That’s why it keeps appearing in the Bible and Jewish tradition, especially when God is doing something for the world at large . We see the seventy disciples sent out in Luke, the legend of the seventy translators of the Septuagint.
So it’s very interesting that seventy should be the number chosen on this occasion, rather than twelve (the number which represents Israel).

Then this delegation “went up and saw the God of Israel”.



Nobody has ever seen God the Father. The God of Israel is called the devil by Jesus. He was a murderer and liar from the beginning. Bet you don't know WHY 70?



There was a kind of sapphire pavement under his feet, “like the very heaven for clearness”.
This is meant to represent the firmament, the supposed location of God’s throne.

Ezekiel saw the Lord on a detached and movable “likeness of a firmament” (Ezekiel ch1 v22).
In Revelation, John was taken up to God’s throne, surrounded by “a sea of glass, like crystal” (Revelation ch4 v6). This, too, is the firmament, the sky seen from above. Another version of the “elders of Israel” was there already.
Strictly speaking, of course, “no man has ever seen God” (1 John ch4 v12), and no man can see him.
At the very most they would have seen an image accommodating itself to their understanding.


Awesome preemptive contradiction dodge. But they either saw him or they didn't. If you need to explain why it is not a contradiction then it is a contradiction.



Nevertheless, they were meant to understand themselves as “being in the presence of God”.

Safely standing (or possibly sitting) in the presence of God, they ate and drank.

The Last Supper is more commonly associated with the Passover Lamb.
But when Jesus offered round the cup and said “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many” (Mark ch14 v24) or “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke ch22 v20), he was evidently referring back to the words of Moses at Sinai;
“Behold the blood of the covenant”.

Following through the analogy points us towards lessons which might be learned about the significance of the Supper.

Firstly, the death of Jesus is to be understood as marking the starting-point of a covenant, just as the sacrifice of the oxen marked the starting point of the original covenant.

It is a NEW covenant.

The reception of the blood is to be understood as uniting the believer with Christ, just as the parties in the old covenant ritual appear to have identified themselves with the covenant sacrifice.
As he says in John; “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him”


Symbolic of cannibalism and vampirism and a creepy reminder of Israel's creepy religion of human sacrifice that has been whitewashed from history. Molech is still worshipped today in secret.



Finally the Supper may be understood as a celebration of the new covenant, like the meal of the elders at Sinai.
And the continuing celebration of the Supper should perhaps be understood in the same way.
“For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death, until he comes” (1 Corinthians ch11 v26).
It is a meal which takes place, like the meal of the elders, in the presence of God.


Way to make a pretty cool book boring as hell. If you had any idea what you were talking about it could have been interesting but you have a simple understanding of Judaism and the Bible.

Yawn.
edit on 25-6-2016 by eSotericSamIam because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-6-2016 by eSotericSamIam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: eSotericSamIam
a reply to: ASIAHXPAORSBA
I explained my reasons when you were posting as Capstone Pendulum and repeated them for some of your other accounts.
You now have a history on these boards of multiple accounts and claimed viewpoints which vary from one account to another.
In other words, you have established yourself in our awareness as a conscious deceiver, someone whose primary interest is in self-entertainment rather than truth.
As a result, nothing you say has any value, and there is no need for me to respond to your posts in detail.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 03:46 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

I never had and wouldn't ask you a thing.

I am just commenting and I don't want any answers from you . You are a bit of a snooze and I ain't no cap pendulum you sore man.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

As such you are the fool whose words have, and I mean literally, no value of any kind to anyone anywhere unless they like boring 50th hand Christian misinterpretation of scripture.

You don't need to make excuses just say "I am not that educated in scripture" so people don't have to waste time with your nonsense. I thought I was about to read something interesting but you picked a boring subject if you don't actually know the meaning behind the ritual don't guess.

Nothing to get mad about and start name calling.
edit on 25-6-2016 by eSotericSamIam because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-6-2016 by eSotericSamIam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Great OP and great explanation.

You did leave out:
"Haec Quotiescumque feceritis, in meiMemoriam facietis."

The proper translation of that phrase is "As often as you do these things in remembrance of me, you do them."

What this refers back to is "HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI" and the importance of that phrase is THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD. What is meant by that is that Christ converted the wine, (as he'd converted water into wine), into his actual blood. And in the process of the Last Supper, Christ therefore empowered the Apostles, (11), to do the same thing, hence "you do them" referenced above.

Just to add.
thanks



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: TonyS
Thank you for your support.

On the verse from Paul, I naturally prefer to follow the Greek text.

The Greek version of 1 Corinthians ch11 v25 runs;
TOUTO POIETE [This do], HOSAKIS EAN PINETE [as often as you drink], EIS TEN EMEN ANAMNESIN [in my remembrance].
What we see from the text is;
"Do this" is the main verb of the sentence.
It is a command, not a statement.
The clause "as often as..." indicates when the main verb is to be done.
"In remembrance of me" indicates the manner and purpose of doing it.

The crucial point causing controversy has been the significance of "this".
Now what was Jesus doing immediately before he spoke those words?
In the context of 1 Corinthians, he was saying "This cup is the new covenant in my blood".
So the most natural inference is that "Do this" means "Remind yourselves that this cup is the new covenant in the blood of Christ".
That fits in very nicely with the concluding words "In remembrance of me".



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

I've never had access to the Greek Text.

So, I guess the question is............you're focused on the "covenant" aspect as opposed to the aspect of sacramental authority? Or you see no sacramental authority?

It would be curious to know the Greek Orthodox explanation.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: TonyS
My understanding of "sacrament" is the one found in the Anglican catechism; "The outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace".
So I do tend to make the spiritual aspect primary to the physical aspect.
They are different ways of saying that the relationship with Christ is what matters.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

My understanding of "Sacrament" is taken from that of the Council of Trent: "Sacraments they do not merely signify Divine grace, but in virtue of their Divine institution, they cause that grace in the souls of men. The "Catechism of the Council of Trent" gives a more complete definition: Something perceptible by the senses which by Divine institution has the power both to signify and to effect sanctity and justice. Catholic catechisms in English usually have the following: An outward sign of inward grace, a sacred and mysterious sign or ceremony, ordained by Christ, by which grace is conveyed to our souls.

From what I understand, (vaguely), Anglicans, especially the Ritualists, hold with Catholics that the sacraments are "effectual signs" of grace. In article XXV of the Westminster Confession we read: "Sacraments ordained of God be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God's good will towards us by which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken but strengthen and confirm our faith in Him".

Luther and his early followers rejected this conception of the sacraments. They do not cause grace, but are merely "signs and testimonies of God's good will towards us" (Augsburg Confessions); they excite faith, and faith (fiduciary) causes justification. Calvinists and Presbyterians hold substantially the same doctrine.

But per the Council of Trent: "If any one say that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify, or that they do not confer grace on those who place no obstacle to the same, let him be anathema" (Sess. viii, can. vi). "If any one say that grace is not conferred by the sacraments ex opere operato, but that faith in God's promises is alone sufficient for obtaining grace, let him be anathema."

Funny to be having this discourse in 2016 on a Forum largely populated by those entirely inoculated against any belief whatsoever of God, to whom they dismissively refer as the "Sky God".



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

Sacrament truly means mystery.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS
Frankly, the Church of England is a coalition of different viewpoints, extending to both ends of the spectrum.
It has been said that the C of E is a church with Calvinist doctrinal articles and a Catholic liturgy. The Ritualists based their approach on the liturgy.
My own background is an Anglo-Catholic upbringing (that is, "High Church" Anglican), followed by a period of atheism, followed by conversion back into the Evangelical end of the church. So I now see the ritualist approach as a distortion of the original faith and would want to play it down.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join