- Jan 25, 2009
- 19,769
- 1,429
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Good Word, Bruh. Thanks for sharing, as Chernoff is very on point with what he notes.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Good Word, Bruh. Thanks for sharing, as Chernoff is very on point with what he notes.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."
.
What differences do you see claimed?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 farThe Lord is not counter to continually stepping things up, as He's the boss and can do as He so wishes.
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.
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 anydayWhat differences do you see claimed?
There are none.
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.All that is recorded is consistent with the modern seder.
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 ).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
Only can it go so far if assuming that there's no scripture showing where He cannot do as He desiresClaiming the old "God can do anything" argument "can only go so far".
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.
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???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).
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: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.
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:No one said it was, although it is assumption to claim that Yeshua was not literally the Passover Lamb
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: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 ).
You're so cute. Isn't that what people usually do when they lack material evidence?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
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 referenceFor 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???
.
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.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?
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 not discussing how Gentiles "did things".
Cool to know, as I am too. What a surpriseI'm discussing the Pesach seder presented in the Gospels.
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.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
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 )Which is more reasonable? To say he was not literally the Passover lamb? Or to propose he sprouted wool and hooves?
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.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.
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.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.
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 suchYou're so cute. Isn't that what people usually do when they lack material evidence?
I agreeScripture is Scripture.
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.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
For me, I don't see conflict, but resolution. Am I missing something?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.
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 itI'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.
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.
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 hyberboletrying to take symbolism and make it reality, .
Thank you!!!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?
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 GodIs 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
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.
...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
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.
Could you flesh that out Steve? About the peace offering?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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?