Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I challenged Jack to give me 100 lines supporting his theory of
    atonement and also at least one from Jesus himself.
    
    Well Jack is half way there.  He gave me approximately 50 lines and I
    have found one from Jesus myself, the Ransom saying repeated in Mark
    and Matthew but omitted in Luke.
    
    Many of the lines were from the book of Hebrews.  Hebrews certainly
    does support the atonement theory.  Hebrews seems to refer back to
    Leviticus.  So after rereading Hebrews, I decided to read Levitucus
    which is one of the few books in the Bible that I have not read.  In
    fact I may have subconsciously avoided the book.
    
    I'm about 1/3 of the way through.
    
    Interesting ritual captures.
    
    Slaughter the bull at the temple.
    
    Take the blood into the inside Holy of Holy.
    
    Dip your finger in the blood.  Scatter the rest of the blood over the
    altar.
    
    Put some of the blood on the penitents right earlobe, right finger, and
    right big toe.  After following these directions percicely, the sins
    are forgiven.
    
    The problem is that sins humankind including the priests sin
    constantly, then constant sacrifices are required.
    
    Hebrews, then identifies Jesus as both the Highest Priest replacing the
    Levitican Priests and the highest sacrifice, replacing the need for all
    other sacrifice.  The two books Levitucus and Hebrews work together.
    
    I'm curious to know how others read and interpret these two books
    

    You may also find it interesting the concept of the Passover.  If you
    recall, the final judgement God placed upon Pharoah was that the first
    born of Egypt shall die.  Of all people and livestock.  The only
    distinction made was that the death angel would go to every
    house...except the house where lambs blood was painted on the lintel
    and door post.  The death angel would then pass over that house.  I
    believe this to be a picture of atonement, the Lord saw this house as
    one of faith by following the requirements for saving the firstborn of
    that house.
    
    Hebrews is the gem in the New Testament for affirming the need of
    sacrifice and atonement for the sin of the world.  Interesting that in
    one of the verses I quoted for you from Isaiah, "...for he hath made
    him to be a sin offering..."  If you look in Leviticus, the
    requirements of a sin offering was that it must be without defect,
    without spot or blemish.  Therefore, the Christ would also have to 
    qualify under these conditions.  He must be without any defect in his
    life.  This is confirmed by the writer of Hebrews..."But unto the son
    he says, "Thy throne oh God, is forever and ever, a sceptor of
    righteousness is the sceptor of thy kingdom"  Hebrews 1:8.
    
    The Aaronic priesthood could only intercede on behalf of the Israelites 
    throught the levitical sacrifice.  Jesus, of the high priesthood, was
    not only priest but also an offering poured out for all humankind, not
    just the Israelites!  
    
    -Jack

    Hebrews certainly is reknowned for its theology which is different than
    the theology anywhere else in the New Testament.
    
    I am interesting in understanding from Leviticus the magical power of
    blood.  I am interesting in understanding how common these sacrifices
    of atonement when compared to Canaanite blood sacrifices.  Is blood
    viewed the same way?  Is clean and unclean the same.
    
    THe blood of the lamb at the first passover sure was thought to be
    powerful!

 >   Hebrews certainly is reknowned for its theology which is different
 >   than the theology anywhere else in the New Testament.
    
    Yes, the letter to the Hebrews gives the best depiction of the person
    of Jesus Christ than any of the the other letters.  However, each
    letter addresses different issues as each of the churches were going
    through their own sets of growing pains.  The Galatians actually
    focuses on the same problem the Hebrews went through.  Both churches
    were confronted by Judaizers.  The Galatian church was told that they
    were justified only by following the law.  The Hebrews were told they
    had to go back to the animal sacrifice instituted by God through the
    Aaronic levitical priesthood.  The writers of these letters, Paul and
    the anonymous writer, were both trying to steer the church back to the
    proper doctrine of salvation through the atoning death of Christ.
    
  >  I am interesting in understanding from Leviticus the magical power
  >  of blood.  I am interesting in understanding how common these
  >  sacrifices of atonement when compared to Canaanite blood sacrifices.  
  >  Is blood viewed the same way?  Is clean and unclean the same.
    
    I don't believe it is viewed the same way.  Take Cain and Abel for
    example.  They both offered sacrifice to the Lord but Cains sacrifice
    was not from his first fruits, nor from the heart.
    God made it very clear to the Israelites that if they partake of the
    sacrifices of the pagan nations surrounding them, that God would make
    those nations a whip to their back and a thorn to their side.  This 
    eventually came true during the time of Sampson when the Philistines
    conquered the Israelites and became a thorn to their side.
    Also, it is important to remember that the Canaanites sacrificed both
    clean and unclean animals to FALSE gods.  They did not recognize nor
    acknowledge the God of Israel as the one true God.  They sacrificed
    their children to the fire god by throwing their children inside the
    idol itself.  It was actually a furnace in the shape of a god.  They
    concealed the childs screams by blowing trumpets very loud for a brief
    moment.  In a nutshell, the Canaanites sacrificed uncleanly and
    disavowed themselves of the one true God!  The god they sacrificed to
    was named Molech.
    
    It is important to understand that the one common factor in all false
    religions is that they branched off from the one true religion.
     
  >  The blood of the lamb at the first passover sure was thought to be
  >  powerful!
    
    Actually, you will recall from your study of Romans that all the O.T. 
    heroes were justified by FAITH.  Even Hebrews 11 gives us what some
    call, "The Hall of Faith" and there are some women mentioned in this
    text.  The blood in its atoning power represents the payment of sin.
    But what REALLY counts is how we apply it to our lives.  Those who did
    not believe in putting the blood on their doorpost lost their
    firstborn.  Those who had faith did not lose their firstborn. 
    Accepting Jesus' death on the cross as payment for sin...The Faith
    Aspect, is the preeminent part of Calvary.  If we lack faith, then it
    is of no effect!
    
    In Christ,
    
    -Jack

      Hi Patricia,
    
        Did you notice that the atonement was not finished after
        the sacrifice was finished, but that the Priest makes atone-
        ment for the congregation by sprinkling the blood of the
        sacrifice?
    
        Did you also notice that the insufficiency of animal sacrifices
        WAS NOT that they could not satisfy any punishment God might
        have had to dole out for sin?  This leads me to conclude that
        God NEVER required such a punishment in the first place!  In
        Hebrews as well as Leviticus, the role of the blood is to cleanse.
    
        BTW, Patricia, I invite you to check out the last 20 or so
        replies of topic #551 in the Christian Conference.  Its very 
        related to this.
    
        What was the insufficiency of animal sacrifices?  They could not
        make the comers thereunto perfect according to the conscience.
        They could not purify the conscience from dead works to serve the
        living God.
    
        The efficaciousness of the cross of Christ is that it can cleanse
        the conscience perfectly from sin.  This efficaciousness has yet
        to be revealed in the believers, but Hebrews forecasts that this
        must and will happen.
    
        Finally, Patricia, its not the literal blood that has this power.
        Gods word is not flesh and blood, but is spirit.  Shed blood 
        connotates death for the blood is the life.  Give Romans 7 a good
        read for what entails spiritual death.
    
        Jesus took sinful flesh and was subject to the cause and effect
        spiritual reality of seeing the commandment (agape) more clearly,
        seeing the sinfulness of sin more clearly, feeling Himself to be
        that sinner, and experiencing the guilt that results.  That guilt
        (that alienation) is the death of Romans 7.
    
        Jesus drank the full cup when His faith pierced the veil and He
        saw His Father face to face.  He saw the totality of the evil of
        evil, felt Himself to be that sinner, and endured the correspon-
        ding guilt.  This was His death.  His resurrection was overcoming
        the temptation to despair and believing His Father accepted Him 
        even in the midst of this dark hour.  When He saw through the
        blackness by faith, this was His resurrection.  The physical death
        and resurrection were schoolmasters pointing to a spiritual death
        and resurrection which had already taken place.
    
        The Sabbath always commemorates a finished work.
    
                                                           Tony
                                      

    Blood-
    
    Leviticus forbids the eating of the blood of animals because the life
    of the animal is in the blood.
    
    From that concept I can better understand the drinking of the blood of
    Jesus as part of the communion service.  Since the life of Jesus is in
    the blood of Jesus, then drinking the blood incorporates the life of
    Jesus within the believer.

>>    From that concept I can better understand the drinking of the blood
>>    of Jesus as part of the communion service.  Since the life of Jesus is
>>    in the blood of Jesus, then drinking the blood incorporates the life
>>    of Jesus within the believer.
    
    Realizing of course the last supper was symbolic.  In John 6 I believe
    is the whole message on the eating of his body and drinking of his
    blood.  He follows the discussion by stating that the words he speaks
    of are Spirit and truth.  The flesh profits nothing!
    
    -Jack
    

    Tony,
    
    I'm never quite sure how to incorporate your writings.  I tend to hold
    them in abeyence waiting for a more fuller understanding.
    
                                        Patricia

    Jack,
    
    I'm not sure the last supper was symbolic.  I'm not sure that is not a
    modern reading into of a primitive tradition.  Somehow I believe
    leviticus may in fact be the key that unlocks the mystery.  It is also 
    suspect knowing that catholicism believes in the actual
    transubstantiation.  The doctrine was not called into question until
    the Protestant Reformation.  I don't believe it was symbolic in the 1st
    century.  The Protestant reinterpretation is if fact a 
    demytholigization of a mythical and magical action.
    
                                 Patricia

    Jack,
    
    By the way, if the blood is symbolic, then Jesus as the lamb of God
    would also have to be symbolic.
    
    Now did Jesus' death on the Cross actually take away the sins of the
    world or symbolically take away the sins of the world?
    
                                Patricia

Since the earliest days of the Church, The Holy Eucharist has been considered
a mystery which provides us with the real Body and Blood of Christ for the
healing of Body and Soul.  I can provide many references.

Only certain Protestants considered it symbolic; Martin Luther, for example,
held firmly to the Real Presence in the consecrated elements.

It's rather amusing that it is usually those Protestants who generally insist
on the most literal interpretations of other texts who take Jesus' words "This
is my Body", "This is my Blood", and "Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of
God and drink his Blood, you have no life in you" to be only symbolic.

The question is what is "real".  Are the physical and chemical accidents we can
see and feel and measure with scientific instruments "real", or is the eternal
substance, that which we know and receive in our hearts, the more real?

/john

    John,
    
    You have identified the perfect question!
    
                
    
    What is real

The actual drinking of blood is strongly prohibited in both the Old and
New Testaments.  It's part of the covenant between God and Noah and his
descendants:

	Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I
	gave you the green plants, I give you everything.  Only you shall
	not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
					Genesis 9:3-4

Also in Acts, where the early church decided that Gentile Christians
should not be bound by the Law of Moses, they said that Gentiles could
eat every kind of food except for blood and for food that had been sacrificed
to idols or that had been strangled:

	For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon
	you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain
	from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from
	what is strangled and from unchastity.  If you keep yourselves
	from these you will do well.  Farewell.
					Acts 15:28-29

				-- Bob

Re: .12 Patricia

> What is real?

"Nothing is real" - J. Lennon.

				-- Bob

.6

Actually, Patricia, according to I Corinthians 12, it is the cup of the
new covenant sealed with Jesus' blood, rather than Jesus' blood itself.
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Covenants were sometimes sealed with blood in the Hebrew Bible.

Being good Jews, Jesus' disciples would have found the notion of drinking
Jesus' actual blood abhorrent.

The account of the last supper recorded in Paul's letter to the church
at Corinth is considered older than any of the gospels.

Shalom,
Richard

    Rudloph Bultmann, the German Theologian who is most famous for his
    concepts of demythologizing the Bible, argues that the New Testament
    itself testifies to this process of dymytholigization.
    
    If Richard and Jack are Correct and the Jewish Christians would find the
     drinking of Jesus' actual blood an abomination and it was in fact symbolic
    , then this act clearly represents a demythologization.
    
    Primitive peoples who practiced cannabalism, did so because they
    believed the power of a person lived in the flesh and by eating the
    flesh they would capture the power of that person.
    
    In the old testament, the Blood has some mythical atonement powers.
    
    THe body and blood become very powerful symbols in the New Testament.
    
    I'm just thinking out loud here trying to fit this all together.
    
                                      Patricia

      Hi Patricia,
    
        Bummer that I'm not being understood!
    
        Romans 7 gives a thorough discussion of some kind of death
        that is in the spiritual (i.e. nonphysical) realm.
    
        Among other things, Romans 7 says "when the commandment came,
        sin revived, and I died."  All the while Paul is physically
        plenty alive.
    
        Part of the attempt of my reply was to point out the symbolic
        reality which the physical blood of Christ points to.
    
        The first step was to reference scripture saying that the life
        is in the blood.
    
        The second step was to contrast nonshed blood with shed blood.
        To suggest that shed blood symbolizes death.
    
        The third step was to remain in the nonphysical realm and to 
        suggest that the death referred to is the spiritual death mentioned
        in Romans 7.
    
        In other words, the shed blood equates to the death spoken of in
        Romans 7.
    
        The next step was to expound on the spiritual dynamics of Romans 7,
        i.e. what does it mean that the commandment comes, sin revives, and
        one dies?
    
        The explanation I offered is that it speaks of spiritual reality
        which is that as one sees the love of God in greater measure (same
        thing as the commandment coming), one sees one's own sinfulness 
        in proportion.  And as one sees one's sinfulness more deeply, one
        experiences GUILT and this experience of guilt in Romans 7 is the
        same thing as DEATH in Romans 7.
    
        The next step was to include a strange truth which is the effect
        of sinful flesh.  An effect of sinful flesh being that should one
        be sinless, if such a person has sinful flesh, that person would
        also be subject to the experience of Romans 7.  That person, as 
        he/she grew in seeing the commandment, would grow in seeing how
        bad sin is, would feel to be that sinner, and would experience the
        self-same guilt.
    
        The next step was to suggest that in order for Christ to be our
        Saviour, He must have taken sinful flesh and thus submitted to this
        reality.
    
        The next step was to suggest that the experience of Romans 7 is
        CONTINUOUS and that in the case of Jesus, it hit a culmination at
        Gethsemane and the cross.  That is, the commandment came all the
        way.  It was no longer veiled at all.  Or, to put another way, His
        faith pierced the veil.  And as His faith pierced the veil, sin
        revived all the way, and (as a result) so did death (guilt).
    
        Or to put another way, Jesus saw God face to face and it revealed
        to Him the absolute fulness of the reality of evil.  He felt to
        be that evil person and He subsequently experienced the guilt that
        naturally follows.
    
        The next step is to recognize that this all follows a spiritual 
        reality.  And that Jesus, being righteouss, overcame the sense of
        alienation by faith.  And to recognize that the unsaved will undergo
        the exact same experience, but will despair.
    
        Thus it will be revealed that death (final death - despair leading
        to anihilation) is inherent to sin and that life is inherent to
        righteousness and that what demonstrates this is an unveiling of
        God's love.
    
        Two final things.  One is my belief that the last generation will
        follow Jesus' path all the way to seeing God unveiled and will
        settle the Great Controversy.  Two is my belief that this all 
        suggests that the real sacrifice of Christ is pertinent in the
        nonphysical (spiritual) realm.  That the experiencing of all the
        guilt wrapped up in sin equates to death and overcoming this
        temptation to despair by faith equates to resurrection.  And 
        finally to suggest that this makes sense with the Sabbath as the
        Sabbath commemorates a finished work, i.e. resurrection also being
        previous to the Sabbath where Jesus rested after His sacrificial
        work was complete.
    
        Patricia, could you let me know if this makes any sense?
    
                                                     Thanks!,
    
                                                     Tony
    
                          

    Unfortunately it is not quite  clear the assumptions you are making and
    how you build one assumption upon the other to reach your conclusions.
    
    The whole things just seems a little abstract.
    
    Like was Christ's death a real death or a Spiritual Death?
    Does Christ overcome real death or just Spiritual Death?
    Did Christ really see Great Evil in himself when he saw God?
    
    
    Somehow it seems a very long distance from the commandment that we must
    be like little children if we are to enter the Kingdom of Heaven!.
    
                           Patricia

   >>     Like was Christ's death a real death or a Spiritual Death?
     
    It was actually both.  He knew he was forsaken by God the Father while
    on the cross.  The Father in essence could no longer look upon Christ
    and have fellowship spiritually with him.  For the first time in
    eternity, God the Father and God the Son were spiritually separated.  
    God could not look upon Jesus in the same way because Jesus had taken
    the sin of the whole world upon himself.  This was the only sacrifice
    that pleased God and atoned for the world.
    
       Does Christ overcome real death or just Spiritual Death?
    
    Well, we know that Christ overcame real death as he rose three days
    later.  He also ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of
    the Father.  Jesus conquered both physical and Spiritual death.
    
        Did Christ really see Great Evil in himself when he saw God?
    
    Not really sure what this is referring to.  Do you mean when He was on
    the cross?
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    What is your scriptural sources for your belief that Jesus was forsaken
    by God on the Cross?
    
                                         Thanks
    
    
                                         Patricia

    Jesus very words on the cross, "My God My God, why hast thou forsaken
    me?!"  It is also noted that Jesus was quoting Psalm 22 which starts
    with the very same words.  
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    If that is your only scriptural evidence, it sounds week to me.
    
    My interpretation has always been not that Jesus was forsaken at that
    point, but in that moment of extreme anquish he felt forsaken called
    out for God's support and was immediately comforted with God's
    presence.
    
    What the point asserts is the full humanity of Jesus and not that God
    forsook him in his moment of most desparate need.
    
                                 Patricia

Patricia is correct.

That particular one of the "seven last words" is the demonstration of
Christ even feeling our own worst feelings of god-forsaken-ness.

/john

      I concur with Patricia on this one!!
    
      "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself!"
    
      What Christ is referring to is His perception which was a
      result, not of the Father leaving Him, but of guilt itself
      for feeling to be the most vile creature in the universe.
    
      BTW, I believe Christ was echoing *temptation* and that He
      really did not submit to this notion, but rather by faith 
      believed that the Father was with Him and still loved Him.
      (See all of Psalm 22.)
    
                                               Tony

    Hmmm...that's interesting and I see your point Patricia.  I was of the  
    belief that since Jesus took the sin of the world upon His
    shoulder...and God the Father cannot look upon sin, that God the Father
    at that moment could no longer have fellowship with the son.  It was at
    this point that he suffered a spiritual separation from God the Father;
    thus you have Jesus quoting Psalm 22, "My God My God, why hast thou
    forsaken me?"
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    I did read Psalm 22 last night.  At the end of the Psalm again is the
    notion that when we cry out for God, God is there for us.  That humans
    do at times feel forsaken, but that God does not forsake us.
    
                                Patricia

    I finished reading Leviticus last night.  I found the book to be an
    extremely disturbing book.  The book potrays an arrogant distant God
    who make all kinds of demands on humans for the sacrifice of a
    multitude of different animals, slaughtered in a precise way, the blood
    sprinkled and poured as demanded so that a pleasing odor may be smelt
    by God.
    
    Two of Aaron's children are executed by God in the book for doing the
    sacrifice wrong.  Aaron is not allowed to respond to the loss.
    
    At another point a Young man, born of an Egyptian Father and an Israeli
    mother is heard cursing.  God orders that he be taken out of the town
    and Stoned to death.
    
    At that point I laid on my bed contemplating both the execution of
    Jesus on the Cross and the execution of this young man by stoning.  I
    wondered what it must be like to die of stoning.  What size rocks must
    be thrown.  I assume that it is a rock that hits the head that
    ultimately kills.  How many rocks hit the arms, legs, stomach, back,
    before that fatal blow.  Does the human protective instinct take over
    and cause the young man to cover his head.  Does that just prolong the
    torture.
    
    I lay there and wrestled with my God.  Why!.  Where is your mercy!.  I
    remember the class on images of God when I asked about the passover and
    the killing of all the first born children.  Why I asked.  Do you
    really think God killed all the children the Sister replied.  No!.  Do
    I really think God ordered the young man to be stoned.  No!.  
    
    But I still get angry as I read the passage.  Thinking of the stoning
    and the execution of Christ and the witches burned at the stake.  How
    many torturous ways have humans invented to execute.
    
    Finally, in Chapter 27 of Leviticus it talks about fields, animals,
    grain and even humans being devoted to God.  The fields, and animals
    and grains can be redeemed back.  But the humans cannot be redeemed. 
    They can only be taken and executed.  Did this passage mean what I
    thought it meant.  Are the humans devoted as human sacrifices, in the
    27 Chapter of Leviticus?  I checked my study Bible, the one with the
    notes on the bottom.  The only note referred to an obscure passage in
    Samuel that did not make any sense at all.   
    
    Even the Evangelists who author the notes, know that there are some
    passages that are best left to lie in oblivion.
    
    At 5:30 this morning I was lieing on my bed.  I thought, I can check my
    Women's Bible commentary for the book of Leviticus.  I read only a
    couple of paragraphs.  It talked about the Priestly tradition.  I will
    read the chapter at another time.
    
    A strange book, this book of Leviticus.  The one passage that I had
    known beforehand was in this book, and was perhaps the passage that
    caused me to ignore the book, was really such a very, very, minor
    reference.
    
                                          Patricia

	[28] But no devoted thing that a man devotes to the Lord, of
	anything that he has, whether of man or beast, or of his inherited
	field, shall be sold or redeemed; every devoted thing is most
	holy to the Lord.  [29] No one devoted, who is to be utterly
	destroyed from among men, shall be ransomed; he shall be put to
	death.
					Leviticus 27:28-29 (RSV)

I think verse 28 is saying that if a man devotes his property or slaves to
God, he can't later redeem the property or slaves by making a payment to
the priests.  Apparently there is a distinction between "dedicating"
property, such as by tithing, in which case the property can be redeemed
as explained in Leviticus chapter 25 and 27:1-25, and "devoting" property
to the Lord, in which case the property can't be redeemed as stated in this
verse.  See also Leviticus 27:20-21 for another example of property that
can't be redeemed.

I don't think Leviticus 27:29 is talking about slaves that have been
tithed to God.  It's saying that if a person is condemned to death under
law, e.g. for murder, they can't be ransomed by making a payment to the
priests.  They must be executed.

So what happens to the slaves referred to in verse 28, who are devoted to
God and can't be redeemed?  They are in the service of the priests, along
with the other property that is tithed.  See Numbers 18:14.

				-- Bob

Re: Note 1049.27                   
POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am"             56 lines   2-FEB-1995 12:20

>>    I finished reading Leviticus last night.  I found the book to be an
>>    extremely disturbing book.  

Patricia, in some ways it is a disturbing sobering book.  Wait until you get 
into Joshua and read the historical account of Israel possessing the promised 
land.  Remember that Israel had 40,000 soldiers while the surrounding nations
had immensely more with greater strength and power.  God indeed lead Isreal
in these battles.   All this to say Leviticus is a sobering account of Gods
    sovereignty.

>>    The book potrays an arrogant distant God
>>    who make all kinds of demands on humans for the sacrifice of a
>>    multitude of different animals, slaughtered in a precise way, the blood
>>    sprinkled and poured as demanded so that a pleasing odor may be smelt
>>    by God.
  
Would you say that God doesn't have the right to be sovereign in these matters?
Remember, it is very important that we (definitely myself included) not make 
God in our image.  Our God is the Lord of all things and created all things
for His purpose.
  
>>    Two of Aaron's children are executed by God in the book for doing the
>>    sacrifice wrong.  Aaron is not allowed to respond to the loss.
  
The ceremonial concepts brought forth by God were to be extremely observed.  
Any deviation from this was considered unsanctified by God.  Even a priest
who entered the Holy of Holies had a rope tied to his leg in the event he 
entered unsanctified and dropped dead.  The priest had to be completely 
reconciled with God the Father. 

Nahab and Abihu in this case were entrusted to present the Lord in a 
sanctified manner before the congregation of Israel.  In this case, they 
offered strange fire before the Lord and the Lord consumed them with fire to 
demonstrate the Holiness of the Mosaic law and of the ceremonial precepts of
the Levitical law.  After God revealed to Moses why this happened and Moses
relayed this back to Aaron, it says that Aaron kept his peace.  I have no 
doubt but that Aarons heart ached for his sons.  
  
>>    At another point a Young man, born of an Egyptian Father and an Israeli
>>    mother is heard cursing.  God orders that he be taken out of the town
>>    and Stoned to death.
  
Again, a demonstration of the Holiness and sovereignty of God.  Believe me, I
don't take this casually either and I always have to remind myself that God is
in control of all things and I must not make God in my image!
    
>>    I lay there and wrestled with my God.  Why!.  Where is your mercy!. 

Patricia, I am not insensitive to this but consider the following.  When you
consider that all humankind is separated from God, consider we should be 
eternally separated from God, then great is the mercy of a God who loves us
so much to persevere with our weaknesses as God does.  To send his son to die
for our sin.  I believe these things happened to truly reveal the absolute 
perfection of God's holiness. 
    
>>    Finally, in Chapter 27 of Leviticus it talks about fields, animals,
>>    grain and even humans being devoted to God.  The fields, and animals
>>    and grains can be redeemed back.  But the humans cannot be redeemed. 
>>    They can only be taken and executed.  Did this passage mean what I
>>    thought it meant.  Are the humans devoted as human sacrifices, in the
>>    27 Chapter of Leviticus?  

Good question and it raised a question mark in my mind.  Are you familiar with
Samuel?  Samuel was a priest and I believe a prophet who annointed David 
to be future King of Israel.  In a nutshell, a man named Elkanah who had two
wives, one named Penninah who had children and wealth.  The other wife was
Hannah, a woman who had a closed womb.  Listen to the prayer Hannah made to God.

"If thou will indeed look upon the affliction of your handmaid, and remember me
and not forget thine handmaid, but will give unto thine handmaid a man child, 
then I will give him unto the Lord all the days of his life.  And no razor 
shall come to his head."  1st Samuel 1 someplace!

This passage is great because when the child is born she takes the child to be 
devoted to the Lord all the days of his life.  She brings him up but also 
bring up three bullocks and has them sacrificed as an offering before God...
but NOT SAMUEL.  I can't fully explain Leviticus 27 but I can confidently 
say that Leviticus 27 IS NOT talking about sacrificing people.  I believe it
is referring to devoting a person to the Lord.  Hence Samuel was devoted to
    the Lord by his mother!
    
Patricia, read 1st Samuel chapter one and see if you can reconcile this as I
have.  

In Christ,                 

-Jack

    Another interpretation of Leviticus is that it is a human attempt to
    try to control the forces of nature, harvest, success in battle.
    
    Leviticus describes a time and place where the people thought that the
    careful preparation and offerings of burned offerings etc, would
    influence God to treat them well.
    
    Perhaps not very different than the similiar stage of other religions
    trying to understand the causality of event in the human life.
    
    If Jesus is God and God is the same today, tomorrow , and forever,
    there sure is a descrepency between the God of Leviticus and the
    potrayal of Jesus and sinners.
    
                                Patricia

    The purpose of the law was twofold.
    
    1. It was there to affirm the inadequacy of the sin nature of humans
    and the sinless nature of God.  Remember from your study of Romans it
    said, "For where there is no law, sin is not imputed."  And in
    Galatians 3 where it said that the law became a curse to us.  BUT
    Christ became the law unto us...  Transgression took place when the law
    was established.  This showed our unholiness contrasted before a holy
    God.
    
    2. The whole law was a standard that humans were unable to keep and
    once again proved the inadequacy of humankind.  Otherwise, the
    sacrificial system under Moses would not have been needed.
    
    I see your point about influencing God.  Patricia, I hope I'm not like
    a broken record but if you get a chance, glance at Isaiah chapter 1. 
    The Israelites had this very motive...to try to impress God with the
    sacrifices.  Isaiah 1, God says he abhors their festivals and their
    sacrifices and that he desired mercy and not sacrifice.  What God
    really wants is a contrite heart and Israel fell so far away it
    displeased God.  I would say that God alone is responsible for the
    setting of the sacrificial system in Leviticus, not humankind!
    
    Come let us reason together says the Lord.  Thou your sins be as
    scarlet they will be white as snow.  Though the be red like crimson,
    they will be as wool"  Isaiah 1 after his strong rebuke!!
    
    In Christ,
    
    -Jack

      re: .30
    
      1 Corin 8:2
      "If any man thinks he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he
      ought to know."
    
      Perhaps the God of Leviticus is identical to the God of Matthew
      and perhaps the 'seeming conflicts' are more related to our own
      indiscernment. 
    
      Perhaps the above text is relevent.
                                 

re Note 1049.33 by STRATA::BARBIERI:

>       Perhaps the God of Leviticus is identical to the God of Matthew
>       and perhaps the 'seeming conflicts' are more related to our own
>       indiscernment. 

        I have *no* doubt that the God of Leviticus is identical to
        the God of Matthew -- however the authors, and the authors'
        perspective, are *clearly* different.

        Bob

        Each book of the Bible is Man's attempt to define God as Man knows God.

    The revelation is there, but it is indirect.  I am studying a theology
    book that describes the revelations and authority of Scripture using
    the Clay jar symbolism of 2 Corinthian.  The Scripture contains the
    revelation of God in human Clay jars.  The mystery of God always
    remains the mystery of God.

    The Collage of all the books of the Bible, points us toward God, but
    does not take away the mystery.  Our knowledge, like the knowledge of
    each of the human authors is incomplete.
    
    When we do not acknowledge that the living Word of God is revealed in
    clay human jars, we seek to control who God is, we deny the mystery,
    and we commit idolatry.
    
    Leviticus must be read as Leviticus.  As part of the Priestly
    tradition.  As a book written at a particular time for a particular
    purpose.
    
    Patricia

 >>   Each book of the Bible is Man's attempt to define God as Man
 >>   knows God.
    
   The Book of Leviticus was written by Moses scribes.  Moses is considered
    a prophet in the Old Testament and hence it can't be mans attempt but
    would have had to be written under the inspiration of God.
    
    -Jack

    Tradition says Moses wrote the whole of the Torah, even the part
    that records Moses' own death.  Pretty neat trick.
    
    Also, Deuteronomy was "found" in the Temple.  The Temple was built, of
    course, long after Moses' demise.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    I'm working on the assumption that Leviticus was written during the
    Babylonian exile.
    
    Quite a while after the demise of Moses.
    
    
                                     Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    The number of years Israel spent in exile was determined by the number
    of years of Jubilee that the Israelites missed over the centuries.
    The year of Jubilee was instituted in the Mosaic law years before the
    exile...it would be like saying that Bill Clinton was George
    Washingtons great great great grandfather...that's how much of a time
    discrepency there was between Moses and the exile!
    
    Conjecturing.  Don't have exact timeframes!
    
    -Jack 

    Jack,
    
    Yes,  The book was written quite a few years after the fact.
    
    Sort of like a rewriting of History!
    
                                             Patricia

    So you do not attribute the book of Leviticus to Moses?  It isn't
    invalid to believe this as long as it can be historically proven.  
    The gospels were written some 55 years after Jesus.  
    
    -Jack

Note 1049.41

>    The gospels were written some 55 years after Jesus.  
    
By whom is subject to conjecture.

Shalom,
Richard

    For more discusion on The writing of the first five books of the Bible
    see note 740.
    
    I will get some information for Monday on the authorship, dating, and
    historic circumstance of the book of Leviticus.
    
                                   Patricia

Ref 1049.21


	The last seven words of Jesus Christ makes for some good research.
I noticed that the translors left what I call some forgein words in the text.  
They must of had trouble understanding them or did not know what to do with 
them.  Before I explain what I learned from researching the Word, I want to 
relate what happened to my sister and her family.  This might help 
some understand the misconception that God turned his back and left Jesus to 
die on the cross all alone.

	My sister's youngest daughter was born with a brain tumor.  After a 
battle with many years of surgery she passed away at the age of 5.  My sister 
lost her job and was on the verge of lossing everything she had, because she 
wanted to be with her daughter to comfort her during her last few months.  
There were times when Shara did not listen to her parents, got in all kinds of 
trouble, just like everyone does.  She did not do her mother's will all the 
time.  Did her mother leave her in a time of need??  No!!! She was there right 
by her side.  Who is to say that God left his only begotton Son to die on the 
cross.  Would you leave yopur Son or Daughter in a time of trouble?

	John 16:32 
Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every 
man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the 
Father is with me.

Here Jesus is talking to his apostles refering to the time of His crucifixion 
and of His death.

	John 10:30 testifies, "I and my Farther are one."
	II Corinthains 5:19 says, "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling 
the world unto himself."
	Colossians 2:9 tells, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the 
Godhead bodily."

	Matthew 26:53
Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give 
me more than twelve legions of angles?

The forgein words in verse 46 of Matthew are not Greek; they are Aramic.  Jesus 
spoke Aramaic or Hebrew as it is called in the KJV.  There are other places 
that Hebrew words show up at also:
	Matthew 5:22, Mark5:41 And I Corinthains 16:22.

I have not been able to find the worl Lama, but there is a word spelled LMNA.
 	LMNA is a declaration of "for this purpose"  or "for this reason"

The root of sabachtani is shbk or shbq.  This means to spare, to leave, to 
reserve or to keep.

	Romans 11:4 is a quote from I Kings 19:18
 But what saith the answer of God unto him?  I have reserved {shbk} to myself 
seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

I Kings 19:18
Yet I have left me seven thousand in Isreal, all the kness which have not bowed 
unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.

This SHBK is translated :remaining" in the following Scriptures:
II Kings 10:11
Deuteronomy 3:3
Joshua 10:33

Going back to Matthew 27, it was about the ninth hour, three o'clock in the 
afternoon, when Jesus spoke from the cross.  Jesus came forth with this 
utterance from the depth of His soul, "My God, my God [Eli, Eli], for this 
purpose {lmna] you spared me [sabachthani].

When Jesus was dying on the cross, He did not cry, "My Gog, My God, why hast 
thou forsaken me," but rather, "My God, my God, for this purpose was I spared, 
for this purpose was I kept, for this purpose was I resvered.

Another place one my check is any translation from the East.  They read in 
Matthew 27:46 as "my God, my God, for this purpose was I spared."  The 
Occidential or Western translations erroneously read, "My God, my God, why hast 
thou forsaken me?"

	God stayed with His Son.  This was not only their triumphat hour but 
ours also, for it was at this point that Jesus Christ, the second Adam, 
fulfilled all the legal requirements for our redemption and salvation.  This 
was Christ's purpose for coming into the world.


S.I.T.

Tom

re .-1  -- Balderdash.

I'm always amused when some genius comes along and completely reinterprets
one of the most intensely studied verses of the bible, throwing away 2000
years of scholarship and inventing a completely new meaning.

>The forgein words in verse 46 of Matthew are not Greek; they are Aramic.
>Jesus spoke Aramaic or Hebrew as it is called in the KJV.  There are other
>places that Hebrew words show up at also:
>	Matthew 5:22, Mark5:41 And I Corinthains 16:22.

In Matthew 5:22, the word "raca" is the Greek translation of the Aramaic
word "reqa" which means "empty-headed".  The KJV doesn't call this Hebrew.

In Mark 5:41 we have Aramaic "telita qum".  KJV doesn't call this Hebrew.

In I Corinthians 16:22 we have Greek "anathema" and the Greek "Maranatha",
contained in the Liturgy of the Eucharist, a transliteration of Aramaic
"marana atha".  KJV doesn't call this Hebrew.

>I have not been able to find the worl Lama, but there is a word spelled LMNA.
>LMNA is a declaration of "for this purpose"  or "for this reason"

Did you consider that "Lama" is "for what purpose" or "why"?

>The root of sabachtani is shbk or shbq.  This means to spare, to leave, to 
>reserve or to keep.

The Aramaic word "sebaq" means "to leave" or "to abandon".

Is your searching in I Kings and elsewhere in the Old Testament based on your
apparent confusion between Aramaic and Hebrew?  The Old Testament is almost
entirely in Hebrew, not Aramaic.  Only parts of Daniel and Ezra are in Aramaic.
Aramaic is still spoken today in some Christian communities in the Middle East.

There is simply no question among any scholars that Jesus was quoting the
first verse of Psalm 22, and pointing by his quoting not just to the first
verse, but to all of it, including its triumph.  Jesus, who is fully God but
also fully human, feels abandonment, but not despair, for he prays to God in
the words of Psalm 22.

>Another place one my check is any translation from the East.  They read in 
>Matthew 27:46 as "my God, my God, for this purpose was I spared."

Please be more explicit about what you mean by "any translation from the East".
Name sources, and the groups that would put this interpretation forth.  Would
these be groups who wish to claim that Jesus was spared from death on the cross
(i.e. did not die, and therefore was not resurrected)?

/john

    John,
    
    I agree with your interpretation.
    
    "My God, My God, why have you foresaken me", really is a pivotal line
    in the Bible and we cannot reject 2000 years of scholarship in
    understanding it.
    
    Psalm 22 really does help with the understanding.
    
    
                                 Patricia

Ref 1049.45


>Please be more explicit about what you mean by "any translation from the East".
>Name sources, and the groups that would put this interpretation forth.  Would
>these be groups who wish to claim that Jesus was spared from death on the cross
>(i.e. did not die, and therefore was not resurrected)?

/john

John:

	had to do a little more research to fing the documents you wanted.

Holy Bible from the Ancient Eastern manuscripts

Containing the Old and New testaments
Translated from the Peshiha,
The Authorized Bible of the Church of the East.

Translated by George M Lamsa

What is "The Church of the East" in this context?

Who is George M Lamsa?

What other scholars claim that the Peshita assigns different meaning to
the last words of Christ on the Cross?

/john