Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
An objective read of the chapters pertaining to his crucifixion shows that it involved an arrest, trial and execution. Yet, christians read meanings
into it and make it look the arrest-trial-execution was a ritual sacrifice which redeems the believer of the sins.
A legalistic or administrative read, from the Roman perspective, reveals that viewpoint, without a doubt. From the perspective of the goat on Eid
al-Adha, however, that's not a sacrifice, either. From the goat's viewpoint, it's just an unprovoked murder.
Viewpoints are important, and there are always more than one. Just because one side cannot see the significance that the other does does not
invalidate that significance. We do not, any of us, whether Muslim, Christian, Jew or what have you, allow others to define the points of our own
religions, or invalidate the points we have established for those religions by making their own definitions. They can make those definitions to be
sure, but it only supports their viewpoint, rather than invalidating the other.
Going back to the Eid example, in America there are many who view the sacrifice as no sacrifice at all, but an instance of animal cruelty under the
laws. Does that invalidate the Eid sacrifice or what it commemorates? Because it has been legalistically determined to not be a "sacrifice"?
If we allow law and legal viewpoints to outweigh and overshadow spiritual ones, then shortly there will be no religion at all - it will be extinct.
"since offering sacrifice is but one facet of the office"
Is it? Then where does it say that the messiah was meant to be a sin sacrifice?
It depends on how much of the Bible you are willing to accept the veracity of. Until I know that, I can't point it out, because the standard response
would be "that must be one of the corrupted parts".
The christian method is to read meanings into unrelated OT verses and proclaim that those were all prophecies of Jesus sin sacrifice. Isaiah is just
one of those instances.They also claim the ram in the thicket, the OT sacrifices of the unblemished animal and the paschal lamb ceremony are all
"prophecies" of Jesus sin sacrifice.
And that is the other standard response - "it's all a misinterpretation", which can be used by either side, in which case someone has to make a
determination as to the correct interpretation. I've not made that determination for myself, because frankly none of those passages are important to
me in reaching a conclusion on this matter.
Its true that they rejected Jesus as messiah because he didn't match up to their expectations.
But did the jews understand that the messiahs role was to be a sin sacrifice as Christians believe?
They did not. In fact the jews don't believe in the concept of a sin sacrifice
I don't know enough about Judaism to determine their reasons for slaughtering animals on the altar. I always thought that most of those sacrifices
were for various atonements - i,e, "sin sacrifices", but it's entirely possible that I thought wrong, So enlighten me - why DID they slaughter bulls,
heifers, goats, lambs, and even birds like doves on their sacrificial altars?
Of course they did not believe as Christians do - if they did, they would be classified as Christians rather than Jews, would they not?
Its christians took on what was originally a jewish concept and turned the human messiah into a sin sacrifice first....and then, into a part of God
or God himself.
I cannot argue with that. It's the defining belief of Christianity.
My apologies for being late in my response - I was pretty done in when I got home after work, so I read, but didn't feel it the proper time to
respond. I then slept all day, and will now play all night again.
edit on 2012/6/2 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)