Is Yeshua the Passover?

Gxg (G²) · Mar 16, 2012

mpossoff said:
Joel Chernoff in his blog refers to it as a New Covenant Passover celebration. But he includes remembering God redeeming Israel from suffering from Egypt and remembering Yeshua's suffering for our sins.

In regards to Matzah Chernoff says;
" So Yeshua was saying that when you celebrate the Passover and remember Israels deliverance from suffering in Egypt, remember my suffering for your sins. Of course the disciples did not fully realize at that moment what this meant until after His death and resurrection."

In reference to wine Chernoff says;
" In the Scripture wine is often associated with blood and so Yeshua, after the meal was over, instructed His disciples that His blood represented a New Covenant."

In reference to the New Covenant;
"The New Covenant is the most important of all covenants between God and man."
.

Good Word, Bruh. Thanks for sharing, as Chernoff is very on point with what he notes.

mishkan · Mar 16, 2012

Easy G (G²);60043706 said:
Actually, seeing the extensive amount of Jewish believers who ntoed the same throughout the ages, including in the early body of believers when they noted how it was different from the Passover that non-believing Jews did, claiming "fiction" can only go so far The Lord is not counter to continually stepping things up, as He's the boss and can do as He so wishes.

What differences do you see claimed?

There are none. All that is recorded is consistent with the modern seder. Yeshua applying the symbology of the Passover lamb to his own death is not "new", but an expected application of the story to his current circumstances.

Claiming the old "God can do anything" argument "can only go so far".

Jerushabelle · Mar 16, 2012

Lulav said:
I don't see how having something 'spiritual' to do something physical makes any sense.

The Torah says to physicality eat the Passover one must be physically circumcised.

Remembrance of Salvation. That was what happened 3,500 years ago.

The reason we celebrate Passover when we do is because it was the time of year we were brought out, redeemed from, Egypt.

Do you "eat the Passover?"

Gxg (G²) · Mar 16, 2012

mishkan said:
What differences do you see claimed?

There are none.

Only when ignoring where Jews did not live the same as Non-belieivng Jews in the early body of believers can one claim there were no differences..and I'll go with the Jewish believers who already noted that anyday

All that is recorded is consistent with the modern seder.

Not really, especially in light of the many non-believing Jews who've consistently denoucned Yeshua for not doing what was in line with the concept of Passover when it came to the Last SUpper being the first of its kind (even though there were Jewish elements). Not suprising, of course, in light of how they don't believe in Yeshua and already denouce the man as blasphemous for claiming to be God...but even with disagreeing with them on the identity of Christ, it is understood that there are reasons why Judaism has always seen what believers were about as not truly being Judaism when it came to how they did things.
On where other Jewish believers felt the same on the issue with Christ truly being the sacrifice, one can go here , here , here , here, and here. In regards to the way Jewish believers were not seen as the same as non-believing Jews, some of this was discussed elsewhere (seen here ) in regards to why Jewish believers were not taxed like regular non-believing Jews. I think it's a good bet to go with them

Yeshua applying the symbology of the Passover lamb to his own death is not "new"

, but an expected application of the story to his current circumstances

No one said it was, although it is assumption to claim that Yeshua was not literally the Passover Lamb and that the Torah always pointed to HIM as the true Passover Lamb...the same thing that the Apostles noted as well ( 1 Corinthians 5:6-8 , Revelation 5:11-13 , Revelation 13:7-9 ).

Claiming the old "God can do anything" argument "can only go so far".

Only can it go so far if assuming that there's no scripture showing where He cannot do as He desires

Gxg (G²) · Mar 16, 2012

Qnts2 said:
God gave commands, and didn't always give details as to how to keep those commands. The answer in Judaism is that He gave the details in the Oral Torah. I can't find any evidence of an oral Torah.

So if God did not provide the exact details, a step by step, then there must be other ways to fill in the details. Either, a person individually does the requirements from their heart, or, there is a centralized method of agreement for the entire community.

The seder is the community agreement (set by the courts of judges). Contained in the seder is all of the commands. At the time of Yeshua, there was an agreed upon seder, which based on a comparison between the account of the Last Supper and the Mosaic law, fulfilled all the commands plus included many of the traditions which are also practiced today, such as reclining at the meal and the use of multiple cups of wine.

Yeshua did not object to traditions. Had the traditions which He did, been a violation of the law, then Yeshua would not be sin free. There is no objection to traditions as long as they do not violate the law. Jesus did object to adding to or taking away from the commands. So traditions are ok, but adding to or taking away from the commands is bad. The command for Passover, is to do it in remembrance of what God did when He brought the children of Israel out of Egypt. Adding another thing to remember would be adding to the command to remember one specific thing.

Where there is a change of priesthood, there is also a change of the law. The celebration of Passover changed, but that is ok. Only those who have Yeshua as the New High Priest celebrate the NT Passover.

mishkan · Mar 16, 2012

Easy G (G²);60043957 said:
Only when ignoring where Jews did not live the same as Non-belieivng Jews in the early body of believers can one claim there were no differences..and I'll go with the Jewish believers who already noted that anyday.
...
Not really, especially in light of the many non-believing Jews who've consistently denoucned Yeshua for not doing what was in line with the concept of Passover when it came to the Last SUpper being the first of its kind (even though there were Jewish elements).

For some reason, I am finding your writing here to be lacking in clarity. Are you trying to say that you would rather believe the arguments of those who are antagonistic to Yeshua than to simply observe the facts of the Gospels for yourself???

You wrote, "the early body of believers when they noted how it was different from the Passover that non-believing Jews did". Can you name a specific instance of real difference? Or are you merely referring to anti-Semitic churchmen attempting to differentiate themselves from the Jewish people?

Easy G (G²);60043957 said:
it is understood that there are reasons why Judaism has always seen what believers were about as not truly being Judaism when it came to how they did things.

I'm not discussing how Gentiles "did things". I'm discussing the Pesach seder presented in the Gospels. If one grants that the authorial intent was not to provide a detailed gap analysis between current tradition and the events of that night, everything recorded is 100% consistent with what we know of the seder proceedings in the first century. There are no differences provided in the record.

Easy G (G²);60043957 said:
No one said it was, although it is assumption to claim that Yeshua was not literally the Passover Lamb

Which is more reasonable? To say he was not literally the Passover lamb? Or to propose he sprouted wool and hooves? He was no lamb, much less specifically a sacrifice, which would be in violation of the laws against human sacrifice, one of the strongest of Biblical prhibitions.

Easy G (G²);60043957 said:
and that the Torah always pointed to HIM as the true Passover Lamb...the same thing that the Apostles noted as well ( 1 Corinthians 5:6-8 , Revelation 5:11-13 , Revelation 13:7-9 ).

The Torah always was. The apostles made midrashic applications to the events of Yeshua's life. Christian teaching has turned on its head this standard approach to reading a historical document.

Easy G (G²);60043957 said:
Only can it go so far if assuming that there's no scripture showing where He cannot do as He desires

You're so cute. Isn't that what people usually do when they lack material evidence? :wave:

Scripture is Scripture. If you want to deny it, or contradict it, there needs to be a significant reason to do so. I simply maintain that Moses gave us the facts. The Messianic Writings, on the other hand, written during the time of the Tannaim, employed midrashic techniques of commentary and application that were developed during the Babylonian Captivity. They used metaphor extensively, like the Tamarians in ST:TNG.

Gxg (G²) · Mar 16, 2012

mishkan said:
For some reason, I am finding your writing here to be lacking in clarity. Are you trying to say that you would rather believe the arguments of those who are antagonistic to Yeshua than to simply observe the facts of the Gospels for yourself???
.

As no one was against seeing what the Gospel said, as it was already referenced and others noted it long before I mentioned anything, there's no need exaggerated what was said. For that's a logical fallacy of arguments via riducle at the least...and disingenious at the worst What was stated was that the Gospels themselves already show that not all things Yeshua did were ever in line with the way traditional Passovers outlined in the Law/Torah were. Simple as that, Bruh. And for those Jews who don't believe in Yeshua, they have valid points when it comes to noting how Yeshua didn't always do what was outlined in Torah. For other Messianics, that's not an issue when seeing how Christ wasn't always playing by the book---and only those assuming He/the Lord couldn't do try to go against something simple as that. But as said before he is the Boss...and I've already shared in-depth on that, so I don't really plan on going into more detail OUTSIDE of reference

You wrote, "the early body of believers when they noted how it was different from the Passover that non-believing Jews did". Can you name a specific instance of real difference? Or are you merely referring to anti-Semitic churchmen attempting to differentiate themselves from the Jewish people?

Again, already shared with you on that. Multiple times, actually, as it concerns Jewish believers in the early church when it came to them doing things you've often claimed to be "Christian" even though they had no issue with it and noted it to be in line with who Christ was. As Anti-Semitic churchmen are not "Jews", it'd be silly to assume one is considering them when mentioning Jewish believers in the early church.

This is not a difficult concept, Bruh

I'm not discussing how Gentiles "did things".

As I never said anything REMOTELY dealing with how Gentiles did things, it is erroneous to assume that Gentiles were what I was referencing. When someone notes that Jewish believers saw concepts a certain way, it is not logical to assume one must be speaking of Gentiles. It is actually a false argument.

I'm discussing the Pesach seder presented in the Gospels.

Cool to know, as I am too. What a surprise

If one grants that the authorial intent was not to provide a detailed gap analysis between current tradition and the events of that night, everything recorded is 100% consistent with what we know of the seder proceedings in the first century

Seder proceddings in the first century are not the only thing in view, especially as it concerns granting the authorial intent of understanding that not all aspects of sedars were done the same way that Christ did them....and even NON-Believing Jews have utilized the authorial intent argument in detailing the ways where CHrist differed from traditional sedars as they were....the most notable being where he identified Himself as both GOD, Messiah and noted where the meal/drink pointed to Him. More was shared in #38.

Which is more reasonable? To say he was not literally the Passover lamb? Or to propose he sprouted wool and hooves?

What you do here is actually the same thing that other non-believers do when it comes to trying to argue the text as not being literal, as it concerns claims of others saying God did not LITERALLY create the nations from one man as the Genesis account....or things like saying "God can't have a robe that fills the temple like Isiah describes because He's SPirit!!!!" And that's uncessary. No one made an argument, to begin with, that said Christ was literally a lamb. Thus, that's a false argument there to try acting as if that was occuring. Christ was indeed the Passover Lamb when it was claimed of Him and the SAME work that he did....and he is called such in the other epistles as well ( Revelation 13:7-9 , Revelation 5:5-7 , Revelation 7:16-17, Revelation 14:3-5 )

John 1:29
[ Jesus the Lamb of God ] The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

As it stands, the Lord can take on ANY form that He wishes since He is God---and has appeared as such to others on a MYRIAD of occassions throughout scripture. The reality is that Christ never had to become a literal lamb with wool in order to take the place of one in what lambs were used for, nor does Christ not literally being a "lamb" when discussing Himself means that He never revealed Himself to look like one.

He was no lamb, much less specifically a sacrifice, which would be in violation of the laws against human sacrifice, one of the strongest of Biblical prhibitions.

Sorry, M--but that has nothing to do with what Christ already noted of Himself being the LAMB and sacrifice necessary to redeem men from sins.

Moreover, it's not even remotely Messianic to claim Christ was NOT a sacrifice.

If discussing how Christ could not be the SACRIFICE since human sacrifice was forbidden, there is a degree of accuracy with that. The sacrificial death of Yeshua in our place was not a Levitical sacrifice. For there were no Levitical sacrifices that would do what His did or used a human being. Of course, His sacrifice was a sacrifice far above any other, for God Himself died in place of His children. He made the rule that if a person disobeys, he must die. ..and He satisfied that penalty.

There was no such command in the Mosaic Covenant and no Levitic sacrifice that would take such a ruling away. The Command was given in Paradise to man (Adam).....and thus, no man could ever meet it.

For more clarity on what I'm trying to say, it helps in realizing how the Levitical Priesthood itself seemed to be one that was meant to go on eternally without a perfect sacrifice arising in the system---and as such, it was why God needed to do things apart from its rules when he sacrificed Himself for us out of our His own freewill....

Its clear repeatedly in scripture that when sin has occurred, something HAS to die. Animal skins for Adam/Eve seems to indicate that, as the skins must have come at the expense of an innocent animals life...and with the animals themselves, it seems God instituted the practice of animal sacrifice as a means of covering the sins of man for a time (Genesis 4:1-5, Genesis 8:19-21)---later making clear that He Himself called for His people to offer up sacrifices. God made repeatedly clear that He denounced the sacrifice of children/men as a means of atoning for others......as seen in his repeated threats of destruction on the nations of Israel/Judah when it came to their doing such.

The only time anything close to a Human Sacrifice was made was seen in Genesis 22 when God called for Abraham to sacrifice Issac as a test of His faith/one of the greatest acts of Obediance in recorded History. It seems odd that God would ask Abraham to perform a human sacrifice since heathen naations practiced HUMAN sacrifice....but God condemned this as a terrible sin within the Levitical Law itself (Leviticus 20:1-5)---one where God said that worshipers of Molech ought to be stoned to death and the Lord promised that He himself would intervene directly by cutting them off.

Does anyone here recall how the Pharisees in Jesus’ time knew the Law well enough to be shocked by His statement that He was the bread of life and anyone who does not eat His flesh and drink His blood has no part in Him.....as seen clearly when the Word declared, “Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (John 6:52, John 6:35-66). The Jews did not grasp the symbolic meaning of what Christ said..but they clearly did not accept the idea of literally eating His flesh, which they would have accepted if the Law permitted cannibalism.

But the Law Sharply condemned human sacrifices....

•Leviticus 26:29

•Deuteronomy 28:53-57

•2 Kings 6:28-29

•Jeremiah 19:9

•Lamentations 2:20

•Lamentations 4:10

•Ezekiel 5:10

There's not one of theses passages that even remotely referred to the act of cannibalism or human sacrifices as a matter of condoning. The Old Testament is quite clear on this matter as the ancient Hebrews were not to sacrifice, and thus eat, their young (2 Kings 16:2-3, Jer. 7:30-31, Jer. 32:35, Ps. 106:37-39)--and for other places, one can go to Leviticus 18:20-22, Leviticus 20:1-3, Leviticus 20:3-5, Deuteronomy 12:30-32, 2 Kings 17:16-18, 2 Chronicles 28:2-4 , 2 Chronicles 33:5-7 , Isaiah 57:4-6 , Jeremiah 32:34-36 , Ezekiel 16:19-21 , Ezekiel 20:30-32 , Ezekiel 23:36-38 and Ezekiel 23:38-40.

It seems that God, in asking Abraham to kill Issac, did not want Issac to die. Rather, he wanted Abraham to sacrifice Issac in his heart so that it would be clear that Abraham loved God more than he loved his promised/long -awaited son. As seen in Genesis 22:13, there seems to be a parallel between the ram offered on the altar as a substitute for Issac and Christ offered on the Cross as a Substitute fro us.

For God stopped Abraham from sacrificing His son IN Light of how he later made clear no amount of Human Sacrifice would ever be enough to appease Him and he ordained that only Animal sacrifices were sufficient to cover man's sins for the time---but with Christ, coming as Himself/God, He died out of His own freewill on the cross. If Jesus had lived, the rest of mankind would have died. But God sent His only son to die for us so that we could be spared from the eternal death we deserve and instead recieve eternal life (John 3:16).

On the theme of parallel, its interesting to see the rationale behind why Abraham was even willing to kill Issac. The scriptures declare that Abraham was willing to Kill His own Son, although as the author of Hebrews observes in Hebrews 11:17-19, he prepared to do so believing that God was able to bring back Isaac back to life again.

This is seen in Genesis 22:5-8 where He says to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey; I and the boy will go over there and worship and come again to you.". While Abraham is committed to sacrificing Issac, he plans to do so in the belief that both of them will return......and when He says to Isacc that God Himself will present the lamb, it is unclear whether Abraham is speaking ironically here (Isacc is the "lamb"), or whether he is expressing faith that somehow God will preserve his son.

As it turns out thankfully (Genesis 22:13), God himself provides the lamb. This seems to parallel exactly with what Christ did with the Help of the Father----for knowing that no man on earth could ever fulfill God's righteous requirements, God Himself/came down and fulfilled His own standards......being the substitute that man could never hope to be while allowing the Law itself to remain in tact when it came to God saying He hated human sacrifices. His own offering freely of Himself accomplished it all..

In many ways, its an issue of trajectory. The Levitical System was set up on the principle of animal sacrifices being sufficient to cover sins for a time---though by its nature, it could never ERASE sins....requiring a continual practice of sacrifices and men coming to do them, as well as having men come from the line of Levi to be qualified to do that.

However, Christ came from an entirely differing system opposite of that...on a differing set of rules. Thus, He could die for us since he wasn't bound by the Levitical Laws saying sacrifices of men were forbidden----and thus redeem us, while a previous system would continue in a manner that made it of no more use. One could continue in it if they chose, but it was sub-standard by the time Christ came on the scene. It'd be like having an airplane from the 1920's/that being all one knew of to use for travel....despite its limitations....and then being presented with an airplane from the late 1990's in all of its advancement to go places the older plane was never designed to go or able....but rather than switch over to the newer model, one would choose to continue on in the older model as if it by itself was all God ever desired.

It'd be sad, but one could not stop a person from doing so....and while the NEWER/ADVANCED model plane would be able to go in directions needed for the future, one would be stuck remaining in an older plane that simply can not go where the pilot may desire.

Likewise, the Levitical priesthood may continue...but in many ways, it was rendered obselte and the PRIESTHOOD has ended due to how CHrist came with an entirely new one. There's no basis for demanding a temple anymore--as it makes clear Christ set it up in HEAVEN now rather than on the earth.

As it stands, the historical context of the book was that many of the Jews were suffering intense persecution from others tyring to get them to go back to the Levitical system as it was before.....which Hebrews 10-11 addresses later on when it comes to their recieving encouragement--and why he is speaking on their not going back to old ways as before. Hebrews 8:4 dealt with the fact that High priests offered gifts of thanksgiving and sacrifices for sin---and therefore, Christ had to also offer a sacrifice, which He does...but on HIS OWN terms when in the Heavenly tabernacle.

This is also seen in Hebrews 9:11-14, Hebrews 9:23-28 and Hebrews 10:12-14. Jesus, as it stands, could not serve in the earthly tabernacle anyhow since he was not of Aaronic/Levitical heritiage.....

The Torah always was. The apostles made midrashic applications to the events of Yeshua's life. Christian teaching has turned on its head this standard approach to reading a historical document.

Incorrect, as that is woefully out of line with where both Jewish leaders in the early group of believers and the apostles also claimed directly what Christ was. It's rather amazing to see one try to claim as you do, but so be it.

You're so cute. Isn't that what people usually do when they lack material evidence?

Not really, as it's usually what people do when they're messing with others who really don't have case but want to act as such

Scripture is Scripture.

I agree

mishkan · Mar 16, 2012

Easy G (G²);60044228 said:
As no one was against seeing what the Gospel said, as it was already referenced and others noted it long before I mentioned anything, there's no need exaggerated what was said. For that's a logical fallacy of arguments via riducle at the least...and disingenious at the worst What was stated was that the Gospels themselves already show that not all things Yeshua did were ever in line with the way traditional Passovers outlined in the Law/Torah were. Simple as that, Bruh. And for those Jews who don't believe in Yeshua, they have valid points when it comes to noting how Yeshua didn't always do what was outlined in Torah. For other Messianics, that's not an issue when seeing how Christ wasn't always playing by the book---and only those assuming He/the Lord couldn't do try to go against something simple as that. But as said before he is the Boss...and I've already shared in-depth on that, so I don't really plan on going into more detail OUTSIDE of reference

Again, already shared with you on that. Multiple times, actually, as it concerns Jewish believers in the early church when it came to them doing things you've often claimed to be "Christian" even though they had no issue with it and noted it to be in line with who Christ was. As Anti-Semitic churchmen are not "Jews", it'd be silly to assume one is considering them when mentioning Jewish believers in the early church.

This is not a difficult concept, Bruh
As I never said anything REMOTELY dealing with how Gentiles did things, it is erroneous to assume that Gentiles were what I was referencing. When someone notes that Jewish believers saw concepts a certain way, it is not logical to assume one must be speaking of Gentiles. It is actually a false argument.

Cool to know, as I am too. What a surprise

I've noticed over the years that you only use, "Bruh",in situations where you appear flustered or frustrated. I understand. There are no differences to be found, so it is hard to defend the premise.

Yahudim · Mar 16, 2012

From the perspective that Y'shua was celebrating Ta'anit B'Khorim with His talmidim on the evening that began the 14th of the Aviv, it is reasonable to presume that He would include the instruction of the Seder, considering the circumstance. I would also presume that He was not the only Moreh to do so that day.

I believe that consistent to scripture and form, He would have taught with parables and used symbolism to draw a parallel, between His body and the matzah, between His blood and the yayin, between the purpose of His sacrifice and that of the Korban Pesach; to bring individual salvation.

But He was not sacrificed on the altar. Nor was He eaten. He was sacrificed on the altar of false accusations and rejected by His people. He was condemned to Sheol. But He was judged at the Throne of His Father and found to be without fault. To transgress the smallest part of the law is to transgress the entire law; therefore under the law, He was given all power and all authority concerning all of the law. For He alone was ever found to be without flaw or blemish under the law.

At the seder, He instructed that the matzah was to be consumed in remembrance of Him, His body broken for us. But He was consumed by us nonetheless. For we were to accept within us, the same Spirit that resided in Him, ala John 17.

Joh 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
Joh 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
Joh 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

For me, I don't see conflict, but resolution. Am I missing something?

Yahudim · Mar 16, 2012

BTW, am I the only person here that knows that there is a difference between someone symbolically 'stepping in front of the truck' to save someone else and the korban that was slain on an altar for atonement?

Gxg (G²) · Mar 16, 2012

mishkan said:
I've noticed over the years that you only use, "Bruh",in situations where you appear flustered or frustrated. I understand. There are no differences to be found, so it is hard to defend the premise.

I've actually used the phrase "Bruh" on a myriad of occassions, be it when I'm speaking to friends or others when I'm in disagreement. Has nothing to do with whether or not I'm "flustered" and not seeing at any point where there's a real evidence on that since it's a statement of being (as in saying someone's a "Brother") --nor does bringing up the topic really deal with anything stated as it concerns Christ being noted to be the Lamb/Sacrifice of the Lord. The differences were shared and have yet to be addressed thus far...but if it is not possible, so be it

etZion · Mar 16, 2012

mishkan said:
For some reason, I am finding your writing here to be lacking in clarity. Are you trying to say that you would rather believe the arguments of those who are antagonistic to Yeshua than to simply observe the facts of the Gospels for yourself???

You wrote, "the early body of believers when they noted how it was different from the Passover that non-believing Jews did". Can you name a specific instance of real difference? Or are you merely referring to anti-Semitic churchmen attempting to differentiate themselves from the Jewish people?

I'm not discussing how Gentiles "did things". I'm discussing the Pesach seder presented in the Gospels. If one grants that the authorial intent was not to provide a detailed gap analysis between current tradition and the events of that night, everything recorded is 100% consistent with what we know of the seder proceedings in the first century. There are no differences provided in the record.

Which is more reasonable? To say he was not literally the Passover lamb? Or to propose he sprouted wool and hooves? He was no lamb, much less specifically a sacrifice, which would be in violation of the laws against human sacrifice, one of the strongest of Biblical prhibitions.

The Torah always was. The apostles made midrashic applications to the events of Yeshua's life. Christian teaching has turned on its head this standard approach to reading a historical document.

You're so cute. Isn't that what people usually do when they lack material evidence?

Scripture is Scripture. If you want to deny it, or contradict it, there needs to be a significant reason to do so. I simply maintain that Moses gave us the facts. The Messianic Writings, on the other hand, written during the time of the Tannaim, employed midrashic techniques of commentary and application that were developed during the Babylonian Captivity. They used metaphor extensively, like the Tamarians in ST:TNG.

Excellent points. I think this shows a great example of how trying to take symbolism and make it reality, distorts the scriptures.

Gxg (G²) · Mar 16, 2012

etZion said:
trying to take symbolism and make it reality, .

Sort of in the same way that others note that it was wrong to assume Christ was literally God when he claimed to be such (as he was truthfully just a man who claimed to be God but was human with divine ideas)--or that it was wrong to literally assume he was truly a Shepherd since he didn't walk around with a staff as many assume. The same with saying he was ransom for sins and the Resurrection and the Life, as it was really hyberbole

Heaven help John the apostle with the things he saw, as he really was tripping to see a LAmb on the throne as well as other heavenly beings---for all of that just couldn't have been literal, huh?

Same with where the OT describes (according to God) as Him being an ALL-Consuming fire and appearing as a cloud of Smoke (discussed in Hebrews 12-13, more discussed here)--or being the Rock that followed them around in the wilderness, according to I Corinthians 10. God is just too limited for all that.

For myself, everything was always meant to point to Christ...and the symbols are shadows which find their light in the Messiah whom they come from. And the ways the Lord describes Himself is how we should view him. If God said that He was a cloud of dark smoke/billowing fire, Exodus 19 / Deuteronomy 4:10-12 /Deuteronomy 4 / f bDeuteronomy 5:21-23 / Deuteronomy 5 / 2 Samuel 22:9-11 / 1 Kings 8:11-13 /1 Kings 8 / Psalm 97:1-3 / Isaiah 6:10 /Hebrews 12:20 ---it'd be idolatry if one came along later saying that another believer could not think of God as such---even in thought----as he or she is going counter to what the Lord Himself has said.

The same goes for when the Lord was shown to be in the form of a Lamb. We know he did not rise from the grave looking like a literal sheep, yet in the Heavenlies (according to Revelation 13:7-9 , Revelation 5:5-7 , Revelation 7:16-17, Revelation 14:3-5 ), there is some kind of sense that the Lord has appeared to look as such...and for that matter, appearing as a Lion in compliments to the Lamb

Revelation 5:5
Then one of the elders said to me, "Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals."

Revelation 7:14-16Revelation 7

The Great Multitude in White Robes

9After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. 10And they cried out in a loud voice:

"Salvation belongs to our God,
who sits on the throne,
and to the Lamb."

11All the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, 12saying:

"Amen!
Praise and glory
and wisdom and thanks and honor
and power and strength
be to our God for ever and ever.
Amen!"

Revelation 19:10-12

The Rider on the White Horse

11I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. 12His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter."[]

And seeing that this is the Lord of the Universe Himself who can and has taken on MULTIPLE FORMS---yet He's still worthy of WORSHIP in all of them.

Taking the issue further, as it concerns the forms that the Lord appears in...

Revelation 4:2-3
2 At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne. 3 And he who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian, and around the throne was a rainbow that had the appearance of an emerald.

Revelation 5:1
1 Then I saw in the right hand of him who was seated on the throne a scroll written within and on the back, sealed with seven seals.

God doesn't hide that he can be seen (or even imagined) in a form. We are made in His image; Moses in the cleft of the rock saw his back, was covered by His hand, and couldn't look upon His face. Reveleation above gives a jeweled description of His appearance, and reiterates that He is not a vapor, a ghostly-spirit, but rather has a "right hand". We are in His image and likeness and it is reasonable to view Him this way...even though none of us will EVer be able to comprehend who He is fully.

mishkan · Mar 16, 2012

talmidim said:
BTW, am I the only person here that knows that there is a difference between someone symbolically 'stepping in front of the truck' to save someone else and the korban that was slain on an altar for atonement?

Thank you!!!

Gxg (G²) · Mar 16, 2012

etZion said:
Is it safe for me to assume from reading above, that you believe you are eating Messiah's body and drinking His blood?

How much blood have you actually drank in your life to keep that command

Seeing that Christ noted just that when it came to what he said in John 6 (as well as explaining what "eating" and "drinking" meant) and how even the early Jewish believers were accussed of cannabalism by those in Judaism/Roman empire due to their literally belief in the prescence of the Lord being present when it came to Communion, is it safe for me to assume that you don't believe that there's a mystical element to what Christ did? It was Judaism that taught a heathen world that cannabalism is bad and all of the Torah is against such heathenism. In John 6, Yeshua was obviously speaking spiritually and was testing the disciples...with eating/drinking having a literal application even though the language didn't necessarily mean EXACTLY a literal dynamic---just as His being described as the Lamb of God/sacrifice doesn't mean it was the same way in all aspects as human sacrifices or that he was lamb with hooves...something best discussed in the article entitled The Gospel According to Moses: The Akedah and Yeshua Fulfills The Spring Feasts - Return to God

Many of them left Him when He said that you must eat My body because it is was against Judaism. Those who were able to understand that this is spiritual, remained and never ate His body after His crucifiction....even though His blood was truly shed for us to be redeemed, His sacrifice making us complete (as discussed before here )

Romans 3:25
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—
Romans 3:24-26

Hebrews 10:11-13
And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool

Hebrews 9:26
Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Hebrews 9:25-27

a

As a lamb was sacrificed for the sins of others to be atoned for, so Christ was sacrificed for our redeemption. Literally and Figuratively, as someone dying for another is just that---a sacrifice made to save them, just as I'd be sacrificing my life to ensure another can live. Some, of course, say that we're not truly made righteous by the sacrifice of Christ and must make ourselves righteous. Do you believe that when believers become submitted to Christ that they truly become sons/daughters and sin is literally destroyed in their lives? I ask because it's generally people from the Reformed camps that tend to make all aspects of scripture into an issue of rationalization. Those in Hasidic camps have noted that to be a problem when it comes to seeing the many ways that there were dual realities in the scripture....especially as it concerns the Real Prescence involved in Communion with the Lord. I've shared before where I stand here in #202 and #233 / ( Messianic Jews and Mysticism )

As it concerns the Lamb of God issue, I appreciate what the folks with the Messianic ministry of Chosen People noted. In their words ( Behold Yeshua: The Passover Lamb of God | Chosen People Ministries ):

Those in the presence of John the Baptist must have experienced exactly that as they listened to his words recorded in John 1:29-"Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"

But what did John really mean? A brief survey of the Lamb and its multi-faceted identity in Scripture and the Jewish world may bring us a deeper understanding of Messiah's fulfillment of John's puzzling words.

The Sacrificial Substitute in Genesis
Sheep are among the earliest domesticated animals in the world, and it is not surprising that they play a prominent role in the ancient nomadic culture depicted in the Book of Genesis. The first references to the Lamb as sacrifice is in the powerful story of Abraham and Isaac. Genesis 22 tells us that God tested Abraham by commanding him, "...Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you" (Genesis 22:2).

There is a world of unspoken communication in the exchange between father and son as Isaac asked, "Where is the lamb for a burnt offering?" Has there ever been a greater affirmation of faith than Abraham's response? "My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering" (Genesis 22:7-8).

We know that the Angel of the Lord stayed Abraham's hand and that Isaac-a Messianic forerunner in his obedient submission-was spared. But the ram-an adult male sheep-was sacrificed in his stead.

The Passover Lamb
We next meet the Lamb as a presence of sacrificial covering in the Book of Exodus. To this day, the account recorded in Exodus 12 is read at Jewish tables at Passover celebrations throughout the world.

"Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying: ‘On the tenth day of this month every man shall take for himself a lamb, according to the house of his father, a lamb for a household...Then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at twilight. And they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses where they eat it'" (Exodus 12:3, 6, 7).

As the children of Israel awaited their deliverance from slavery to Pharaoh, they beheld the awesome power of the Lord and His judgment upon the Egyptians.

In the New Testament record of the Last Supper, it seems quite reasonable, as many scholars attest, to make the connection between John the Baptist's words in John 1:29 and the Gospel's words in John 19:36. The words, "For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, 'Not one of His bones shall be broken,'" are an explicit reference to the Passover Lamb in Exodus 12:46.

By the time we reach the Second Temple period, the number of lambs sacrificed for Passover would seem to us to be staggering. The historian Josephus asserts in The Jewish War that in the year 66 AD there were 256,500 lambs sacrificed at Passover. Even if we consider this to be an inflated figure, only one-tenth that number is scarcely imaginable.

But in Jesus' day, the Lamb had already come to mean much more than a simple blood sacrifice-and the expanded meaning of this already powerful symbol may provide a key to our understanding of what the words of John could have meant to his listeners.

The Lamb in Pseudepigraphal Literature

The Lamb of God is a familiar Biblical image of sacrifice and submission. We think of the Messianic "lamb led to the slaughter" in Isaiah 53:7, for example. Yet, by New Testament times, the Lamb had acquired an additional dimension-one of triumph!

The image of the triumphant Lamb of God appears in the apocalyptic literature of the Pseudepigrapha ("false" writings), written in the intertestamental and New Testament periods. This era of tumult, which also produced the Dead Sea Scrolls, was charged with Messianic expectation.

One such work, The Testament of Joseph, contains the verse "Do ye therefore, my children, observe the commandments of the LORD, and honor Levi and Judah; for from them shall arise unto you the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world, one who saveth all the Gentiles and Israel" (2 Joseph 77). The similarity of these words to those of John the Baptist is most striking. (Some scholars believe they may have been added later by Christians.)
Perhaps the best-known work in which the imagery of the victorious Lamb is found is the First Book of Enoch.

This work, written before the first century AD, carried much weight at the time the New Testament was written, and is even quoted in the Epistle of Jude (Jude 14-15).

Although scholars may debate the fine points, these sources do provide a context for understanding the fifth chapter of the Book of Revelation-Scripture's most powerful image of the triumphant Lamb. Here the Lamb of God is revealed as the suffering, resurrected and triumphant servant of the Lord-none other than Jesus the Messiah.

And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain...Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne, the living creatures, and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice: "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom, and strength and honor and glory and blessing!" (Revelation 5:6,11-12).

The Passover Lamb and the Redemption of the World
The image of sacrificial suffering and triumphant victory is perhaps most fully realized in the words of Revelation 13:8-"...the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

Now we see the redemption of God at work not only through the eyes of the children of Israel delivered at the Exodus, not only through the eyes of those who witnessed the awesome power of the resurrection at the empty tomb, but as though through the eyes of the Lord Himself at Creation. We see redemption, if you will, as a foundational building block of reality.

The story of this sweeping vision is foretold in Scripture, demonstrated at Passover, and fulfilled at the Cross and the Resurrection. For Yeshua is truly the Lamb of God, whose blood has paid for our sins and has purchased our salvation.

Gxg (G²) · Mar 16, 2012

Qnts2 said:
...Yeshua is called the Passover lamb. And the NT Passover is kept in remembrance of Him and what Jesus did to bring us out of the house of bondage.

Although we do not actually eat Yeshua the lamb, we symbolically recognize that it was the crucifixion of the body of Jesus, the broken matza.

If the Mosaic law forbids adding to or taking away from any command, and the NT Passover adds in remembrance of Yeshua, then the NT Passover is the Passover of a different covenant.

Plus, the Passover of the Mosaic law required the ritual physical circumcision, but the Passover of the NT requires a circumcision of the heart. Again, that would be taking away the requirement for the physical circumcision from the Mosaic law

Excellent points as it concerns the differing dynamics occurring with the Passover that Christ initiated and what it stood for, complimenting how it occurred within the OT. Don't know if you saw this....but as referenced earlier in discussion, there was an excellent review on the matter that seemed very comprehensive as it concerns the history behind Passover and how it either differed or remained the same during the time of Christ. It's entitled "Another Look at the Lamb of God" by Christopher Skinner.

Qnts2 said:
When Jesus told the disciples to 'do this in memory of Me', what He was telling them was how to celebrate the fulfillment of Passover in the New Covenant. Since the Mosaic covenant Passover law says to celebrate the Passover in memory of what God did when He brought the Jewish people out of Egypt.

A change in the law means a change of covenant. And a change of priesthood means a change of the law, and a change of covenant. No one was to add to or subtract from the law of the Mosaic covenant. Each covenant given by God was different then the previous covenant. Since the terms (law) of a covenant is a firm agreement, a change of the law requires an establishment of a new covenant with different terms and promises.

Throughout the Tenakh, and there are mentions of what God has planned in the future. In almost every book, there is more revelation about the Messiah and what the future time of the Messiah will be like. So, Jeremiah does not contain every detail. Jeremiah contains the idea that there will be a New Covenant which will not be like the covenant given at Mt. Sinai. Ezekiel has more, and Ezekiel goes further in describing this time, into the Messianic era and beyond.

All about how the physical was always meant to point to larger SPIRITUAL reality of what's to come

someguy14 · Mar 16, 2012

God is so beautiful. All of Gods creation is beautiful. All of the least are Gods children. God is the greatest, the only.
May we all be given the ability to only look upon the most beautiful of all, The Lord, God! God, have mercy on us, we only want You!

Lulav · Mar 22, 2012

Steve Petersen said:
There is also a tendency to equate the slaying of the Passover lamb with atonement for sin.

But sin offerings were not eaten by the offerer.

The nearest thing to the Passover lamb are the rules pertaining to peace offerings.

Could you flesh that out Steve? About the peace offering?

The original Passover was slain for it's blood that was put on the lintels of the houses of the Israelites. This was as a protection from the angel of death.

(Just chain thinking here)

But the death that was to come was only on the first born, so in reality all those inside the house that were not the firstborn of the families were safe since the plague was against the firstborn.

Yeshua said that his blood was shed for many, but not all, Could there be a connection?

Qnts2 · Mar 22, 2012

Lulav said:
Could you flesh that out Steve? About the peace offering?

The original Passover was slain for it's blood that was put on the lintels of the houses of the Israelites. This was as a protection from the angel of death.

(Just chain thinking here)

But the death that was to come was only on the first born, so in reality all those inside the house that were not the firstborn of the families were safe since the plague was against the firstborn.

Yeshua said that his blood was shed for many, but not all, Could there be a connection?

Butting in here.

Jesus was a first born. We receive blessing thru Him, so we actually receive the blessings of the first born, New Covenant. In the Tenakh, the blessings of the first born was the double portion inheritance.

Thru Jesus, the first born, we receive the adoption, and inherit eternal life, and inherit the kingdom of God. I have not done much study of our inheritance in the Messianic reign or the new heaven and new earth.

Tishri1 · Mar 24, 2012

Mod Hat On

I just cleaned up this thread of a bunch of personal attacks, a lot of good info was also lost since the context was housed in flames... Please review your posts before hitting enter to be sure your posting respectfully toward your neighbors or visitors

Mod hat off

Is Yeshua the Passover?

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

There's room for YOU in the Mishkan!

Well-Known Member

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

There's room for YOU in the Mishkan!

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

There's room for YOU in the Mishkan!

Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic

Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

A Dirty Gentile

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

There's room for YOU in the Mishkan!

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

someguy14

Guest

Y'shua is His Name

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads