Hard to tell.
Most of the gospels in the Greek Text (GT) indicate that it was -- but one says that it wasn't. Besides that conflict of information we have the issue of Jsus sinning if it was Passover.
His sin? Eating bread on Passover. Strictly forbidden:
"Exodus 12:17 . . .You must carefully keep this day for all generations; it is a law for all times. :18 From the 14th day of the first month in the evening, until the night of the 21st day of the month, you must eat [only] matzahs (unleavened bread)."
Yet the Xian bible tells us that Jsus ate bread. If this was Passover he sinned. This is a law for ALL TIMES per G-d. In other words Jsus can't come along and change it.
The GT gives contradictory information about Jsus' supposed "last" supper. Some gospels say it was a Passover meal (Seder) but then have him eating bread, not matzo (sinning by doing so). Another gives a different date.
This is important to distinguish because it shows a woeful ignorance of Judaism on the part of whoever wrote the GT. And if Jsus did indeed eat bread on Passover he broke yet another of G-d's mitzvot (not the first time either per the GT).
Jewish days are from sunset to sunset. So Nisan 15 begins at sundown -- you killed the lamb during the day (in the afternoon of Nisan 14) and you ate it that night -- which was now Nisan 15.
BTW, there is NO such term in Judaism as “preparation day”. It is yet another nail in the coffin that shows whoever wrote the GT was either a non-Jew or an illiterate one. And to make things even more obvious Matthew calls the holy day (whether it is Sabbath or Passover) “the day after preparation day.”
Matthew 27:62 [ The Guard at the Tomb ] The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate.
Would you call Xmas “the day after preparation day”? Or would you call it Xmas?
How about Easter? Would you call any holy day “the day after preparation day” -- or Easter?
So why would a Jew call Passover "the day after Preparation Day"? Because it wasn't a Jew who wrote it. It was not written by anyone who knew a thing about Judaism.
If, as Xians contend, “preparation day” was the day before Passover why wouldn’t Matthew say “the next day, Passover?” If it was the day after preparing for Shabbat Matthew would say “the next day, Shabbat.”
No Jew would say “the day AFTER preparation day.” The day after ANY day of preparation would be a given yom tov (holy day).
And what exactly was the day – preparation for Passover or Sabbath? As usual pick a gospel and get a different answer!
Mark 15:42 It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath).
Luke 23:54 It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin.
John 19:14 It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour.
John 19:31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath.
So what was it? Preparation for Sabbath? Preparation for Passover week? Preparation for a special Sabbath? ????
Exodus 12:6. And you shall keep it for inspection until the fourteenth day of this month, and the entire congregation of the community of Israel shall slaughter it in the afternoon. 7. And they shall take [some] of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel, on the houses in which they will eat it. 8. And on this night, they shall eat the flesh, roasted over the fire, and unleavened cakes; with bitter herbs they shall eat it.
and
LEVITICUS 23:6 "And on the fifteenth day of the same month Nisan is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the L-RD; seven days you must eat unleavened bread. 7 On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall do no customary work on it." (NKJV) On Nisan 14 you slaughter the lamb and on Nisan 15 you eat it.
Nisan 15 is the beginning of the Passover festival -- it is the night of the day that had been Nisan 14. On Nisan 15 we have a Seder -- the meal described above in Exodus 12.
Now per the GT (3 out of 4 gospels) J-sus ATE a Passover Seder. So if J-sus ate his Passover meal it was AFTER the slaughter of the paschal lambs (done on Nisan 14).
Sinning.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Passover has nothing to do with Jsus.
The Greek Text (the Xian bible) compares Jsus to the paschal lamb. It also says that he died on Passover, trying to tie Jsus in as the ultimate Passover sacrifice.
IF the authors of the GT (Greek Text) were Jews they were certainly ill educated. They not only have Jsus eating bread on Passover (forbidden in Torah), but the paschal lamb was a celebratory sacrifice NOT a sin atonement.
Not to mention that human sacrifices are an abomination to G-d and forbidden. Oops. These little details can be so distracting, can't they?
Qorban (what you call sacrifice) was never the ONLY way to be close to HaShem, it was only A way.
Qorban translates in concept to a "drawing near to HaShem.” Most qorbans had nothing to do with sin at all – they were used to thank HaShem and also to try and draw nearer to Him spiritually.
Jsus (if he isn't completely fictional) was NOT a valid qorban aka sacrifice – want proof?
Read the תנ״ך Tanach (Tanach is the Jewish word for the bible. It stands for תּוֹרָה (Torah) which means Teaching and is the first five Books of Moses, נביאים (Nevi'im) which means Prophets, and כתובים (Ketuvim) which means Writings. The three words Torah-Nevi'im-Ketuvim when shortened become "T'NaK" or Tanach.
Back to Jsus and Passover. The Torah tells us that a sacrificial ritual must be administered by a Jewish priest. A Jewish priest must be a descendent of Aaron of the tribe of Levi. Roman guards weren't Jews let alone descended from Moses' brother Aaron. Read the book of Leviticus for lots of information on the priestly family as well as the rules for sacrifices.
According to the accounts in the Greek Text (GT), Jsus was crucified by Roman soldiers (Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:33; John 19:18, 23). No Jewish priest (kohen) anywhere in sight.
Torah further tells us that the blood of the lamb or goat sacrificed for the Passover had to be sacrificed INSIDE the Temple by a Jewish priest and its blood had to be put on the altar in the Temple. None of this was done with Jsus.
Torah further tells us that an animal sacrifice must be without any physical defect or blemish (e.g., Leviticus 4:3). According to the various accounts in the GT, Jsus was beaten, whipped, and dragged on the ground before being crucified (Matthew 26:67, 27:26, 30-31; Mark 14: 65, 15:15-20; Luke 22: 63; John 18:22, 19:1, 3). If you believe the Mel Gibson bloodfest on Jsus death he surely didn't meet THIS criteria either. Actually just because he was born a Jewish boy per the GT Jsus was circumcised on the eighth day after being born, a ritual that leaves a scar ("sign of the covenant"). According to the GT, circumcision is tantamount to mutilation (Philippians 3:2, Galatians 5:12) -- ergo unfit as a sacrifice.
Torah says that the Passover sacrifice be a male-goat or male-lamb and could only be offered by individuals (per household). Xians think Jsus died for everyone (Romans 6:10; Hebrews 9:12, 10:10, 10:18 ). That won't wash if he was a paschal lamb since a paschal lamb which could NOT be a communal sacfrifice. See Numbers 28:22.
Torah goes on to say that the Paschal Lamb was NOT to be offered for the removal of sins -- individual OR communal. It was a commemorative/festive offering to thank G-d for freeing us from slavery in Egypt. This is why I said the authors of the GT either weren't Jews or were poorly educated. If they wanted to tag Jsus as a sin sacrifice they should have called him the Yom Kippur goat. See Numbers 29:11 [individual sin-offering―male goat]; Leviticus 16:15 [communal sin-offering―male goat]). Actually the Yom Kippur scapegoat which took away all sins wasn't even killed. It was sent alive into the wilderness. Hmmm. Having trouble matching Jsus up to Torah aren't we?
The sacrificed Paschal Lamb had to be roasted and eaten. Apparently no one ate Jsus' body.
Torah teaches that sacrifices can only atone for sins committed PRIOR to the offering of the sacrifice. No sacrifice could ever atone for sins committed AFTER the sacrifice was offered. Thus, no sacrifice could ever atone for people born after the sacrifice was offered.
Torah vehemently FORBIDS human vicarious atonement (e.g., Exodus 32:31-33; Numbers 35:33; Deuteronomy 24:16; II Kings 14:6; Jeremiah 31:29 [30 in a Xian Bible]; Ezekiel 18:4,20; Psalms 49:7).
Human sacrifices are strictly forbidden in Torah (e.g., Leviticus18:21, 24-25; Deuteronomy 18:10; Jeremiah 7:31, 19: 5; Ezekiel 23:37, 39).
So, as you can clearly see that the death of Jsus could never atone for any sin, much less all sins of all people for all time? NOT AT ALL, NEVER! The story is pagan in its entirety and breaks all the laws of Jewish sacrifice.
So let's recap:
He sure wasn't the "paschal" lamb because that was not for atonement of sins.
Rabbi Tovia Singer has a good article on the subject at Outreach Judaism. The Egyptians worshipped the lamb as a G-d, so by slaughtering a lamb and putting its blood on the doorposts of their houses, the Israelite slaves were risking Pharoah's rath and a death sentence.
So slaughtering the lamb was an act of DEFIANCE (not a meek submission of a lamb to slaughter as Xians think). It was also an act of faith that HaShem would protect them.
After this initial paschal lamb G-d gave a commandment that the Jews forever remember it and sacrifice a lamb on Passover.
Let's get specific about the details. COULD Jsus have been the ultimate "lamb" sacrifice?
1)The sacrifice must be pure and unmarred "Your lamb shall be without blemish"(Ex. 12:5),(Lev 22:15-17). If Mel Gibson was right, then J* was more than "marred." He was bloodied and beaten. Per the GT (Mark 14) "the guards took him and beat him." Also read Mat 27:28-32.
a) The sacrifice must be brought by Kohenim without blemishes (Lev 21:15-17). Again, see Matthew 27 and Mark 14. J* had plenty of blemishes, "they stuck a reed in his right hand"(Matt 27:29) & "They took hold of the reed and kept striking him on the head." (Matt 27:30).
2)The Passover sacrifice was not a communal offering, each household had to do it (Ex. 12:3)"Speak to the community of Israel and say that on the tenth of this month each of them shall take a lamb to a family, lamb a household." Ergo if J* were a PASCHAL LAMB sacrifice his sacrifice could only be for "one household" not for all the people alive then -- let alone all future generations.
3) The paschal lamb must rbe oasted and eaten. (Ex 12:8) "They shall eat the flesh the same night; they shall eat it roasted over the fire." Was J* the victim of canabalism? Nope. He wasn't eaten, so again the analogy of J* to the paschal lamb is a bad one.
4) Finally, as I stated at the start -- the Passover sacrifice was not for the removal of sins . No where in that section are sins even discussed. The sacrifice was a commemorative sacrifice. (Exodus 12 and Leviticus 23).
Nope, not a sign of Jsus in the paschal lamb or in the Passover.
IF the authors of the GT (Greek Text) were Jews they were certainly ill educated. They not only have Jsus eating bread on Passover (forbidden in Torah), but the paschal lamb was a celebratory sacrifice NOT a sin atonement.
Not to mention that human sacrifices are an abomination to G-d and forbidden. Oops. These little details can be so distracting, can't they?
Qorban (what you call sacrifice) was never the ONLY way to be close to HaShem, it was only A way.
Qorban translates in concept to a "drawing near to HaShem.” Most qorbans had nothing to do with sin at all – they were used to thank HaShem and also to try and draw nearer to Him spiritually.
Jsus (if he isn't completely fictional) was NOT a valid qorban aka sacrifice – want proof?
Read the תנ״ך Tanach (Tanach is the Jewish word for the bible. It stands for תּוֹרָה (Torah) which means Teaching and is the first five Books of Moses, נביאים (Nevi'im) which means Prophets, and כתובים (Ketuvim) which means Writings. The three words Torah-Nevi'im-Ketuvim when shortened become "T'NaK" or Tanach.
Back to Jsus and Passover. The Torah tells us that a sacrificial ritual must be administered by a Jewish priest. A Jewish priest must be a descendent of Aaron of the tribe of Levi. Roman guards weren't Jews let alone descended from Moses' brother Aaron. Read the book of Leviticus for lots of information on the priestly family as well as the rules for sacrifices.
According to the accounts in the Greek Text (GT), Jsus was crucified by Roman soldiers (Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:33; John 19:18, 23). No Jewish priest (kohen) anywhere in sight.
Torah further tells us that the blood of the lamb or goat sacrificed for the Passover had to be sacrificed INSIDE the Temple by a Jewish priest and its blood had to be put on the altar in the Temple. None of this was done with Jsus.
Torah further tells us that an animal sacrifice must be without any physical defect or blemish (e.g., Leviticus 4:3). According to the various accounts in the GT, Jsus was beaten, whipped, and dragged on the ground before being crucified (Matthew 26:67, 27:26, 30-31; Mark 14: 65, 15:15-20; Luke 22: 63; John 18:22, 19:1, 3). If you believe the Mel Gibson bloodfest on Jsus death he surely didn't meet THIS criteria either. Actually just because he was born a Jewish boy per the GT Jsus was circumcised on the eighth day after being born, a ritual that leaves a scar ("sign of the covenant"). According to the GT, circumcision is tantamount to mutilation (Philippians 3:2, Galatians 5:12) -- ergo unfit as a sacrifice.
Torah says that the Passover sacrifice be a male-goat or male-lamb and could only be offered by individuals (per household). Xians think Jsus died for everyone (Romans 6:10; Hebrews 9:12, 10:10, 10:18 ). That won't wash if he was a paschal lamb since a paschal lamb which could NOT be a communal sacfrifice. See Numbers 28:22.
Torah goes on to say that the Paschal Lamb was NOT to be offered for the removal of sins -- individual OR communal. It was a commemorative/festive offering to thank G-d for freeing us from slavery in Egypt. This is why I said the authors of the GT either weren't Jews or were poorly educated. If they wanted to tag Jsus as a sin sacrifice they should have called him the Yom Kippur goat. See Numbers 29:11 [individual sin-offering―male goat]; Leviticus 16:15 [communal sin-offering―male goat]). Actually the Yom Kippur scapegoat which took away all sins wasn't even killed. It was sent alive into the wilderness. Hmmm. Having trouble matching Jsus up to Torah aren't we?
The sacrificed Paschal Lamb had to be roasted and eaten. Apparently no one ate Jsus' body.
Torah teaches that sacrifices can only atone for sins committed PRIOR to the offering of the sacrifice. No sacrifice could ever atone for sins committed AFTER the sacrifice was offered. Thus, no sacrifice could ever atone for people born after the sacrifice was offered.
Torah vehemently FORBIDS human vicarious atonement (e.g., Exodus 32:31-33; Numbers 35:33; Deuteronomy 24:16; II Kings 14:6; Jeremiah 31:29 [30 in a Xian Bible]; Ezekiel 18:4,20; Psalms 49:7).
Human sacrifices are strictly forbidden in Torah (e.g., Leviticus18:21, 24-25; Deuteronomy 18:10; Jeremiah 7:31, 19: 5; Ezekiel 23:37, 39).
So, as you can clearly see that the death of Jsus could never atone for any sin, much less all sins of all people for all time? NOT AT ALL, NEVER! The story is pagan in its entirety and breaks all the laws of Jewish sacrifice.
So let's recap:
He sure wasn't the "paschal" lamb because that was not for atonement of sins.
Rabbi Tovia Singer has a good article on the subject at Outreach Judaism. The Egyptians worshipped the lamb as a G-d, so by slaughtering a lamb and putting its blood on the doorposts of their houses, the Israelite slaves were risking Pharoah's rath and a death sentence.
So slaughtering the lamb was an act of DEFIANCE (not a meek submission of a lamb to slaughter as Xians think). It was also an act of faith that HaShem would protect them.
After this initial paschal lamb G-d gave a commandment that the Jews forever remember it and sacrifice a lamb on Passover.
Let's get specific about the details. COULD Jsus have been the ultimate "lamb" sacrifice?
1)The sacrifice must be pure and unmarred "Your lamb shall be without blemish"(Ex. 12:5),(Lev 22:15-17). If Mel Gibson was right, then J* was more than "marred." He was bloodied and beaten. Per the GT (Mark 14) "the guards took him and beat him." Also read Mat 27:28-32.
a) The sacrifice must be brought by Kohenim without blemishes (Lev 21:15-17). Again, see Matthew 27 and Mark 14. J* had plenty of blemishes, "they stuck a reed in his right hand"(Matt 27:29) & "They took hold of the reed and kept striking him on the head." (Matt 27:30).
2)The Passover sacrifice was not a communal offering, each household had to do it (Ex. 12:3)"Speak to the community of Israel and say that on the tenth of this month each of them shall take a lamb to a family, lamb a household." Ergo if J* were a PASCHAL LAMB sacrifice his sacrifice could only be for "one household" not for all the people alive then -- let alone all future generations.
3) The paschal lamb must rbe oasted and eaten. (Ex 12:8) "They shall eat the flesh the same night; they shall eat it roasted over the fire." Was J* the victim of canabalism? Nope. He wasn't eaten, so again the analogy of J* to the paschal lamb is a bad one.
4) Finally, as I stated at the start -- the Passover sacrifice was not for the removal of sins . No where in that section are sins even discussed. The sacrifice was a commemorative sacrifice. (Exodus 12 and Leviticus 23).
Nope, not a sign of Jsus in the paschal lamb or in the Passover.
Monday, January 1, 2007
Some grammar rules for my blog
You may notice that I will write "G-d" or HaShem (Hebrew for "the name") rather than spelling it out. This is also true for the names of non-Jewish gods (no dash there because I am not speaking of a particular god but the term itself).
Please do not be offended if you see "Jsus" or "Chrstian" -- note the same is done to "All-h" or "G-d."
Why?
My "rule of thumb" is if we are speaking of a specific god (or G-d) then I err on the side of caution and use the dash or remove a letter. If we are speaking in general of "messiahs" or "gods" then I don't.
The practice comes from Deuteronomy 12:3-12:4. Jews are told to destroy everything to do with false gods. We are also told NOT to destroy anything to do with HaShem.
Since anything written can be destroyed it is erring on the side of caution to not write it in the first place. This is a rabbinical decree. The rule of thumb is that we do not explicitly writing the name of G-d anywhere other than holy books like a Siddur or Chumash (prayer book or Five Books of Moses and Haftorah).
So to be according to Hoyle the rule of writing down G-d's name applies to Hebrew and not to other languages. This is discussed in the Shach (Yoreh De'a 179:11). But I, along with many others, err on the side of caution and choose to not write down even English versions as a sign of respect for G-d.
The Talmud (Shevuot 35a-b) tells us that the rule of not writing G-d's name is specific to the seven names in the Torah. Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Yesodei HaTorah 6:1-2) agrees with your stance.
I use the word "Jsus" rather than spelling it out because some worship him as a god. The name Jesus itself is not at issue since many people (particularly Hispanics) use it as a proper name. The issue is when people use it as a name for a god. The word "god" is not a name. Jesus is a name -- but of many people alive today, not just those worshipped as gods. Those are not at issue and may be spelled out.
I extend this ban to Chrstianity. The term "christ" is Greek for messiah and again the word itself isn't at issue. But over time the term has become used as a name of the Chrstian god and thus has become a name of a god and I don't spell it out.
Sometimes I use Chrstian (without the "i") and sometimes Xian. Neither is meant to be taken as an offense. The use of an "X" is Chrstian in origen (ever hear of "Xmas"?). It comes from the first letter of chrst in greek (chrstos) is a Chi, which looks like an "X".
The possible halachic (Jewish law) problem from writing the word "chrst" out comes from the fact that "chrstos" is the Greek word for messiah (the Hebrew is "moshiach"). So not only do we have the issue of chrst being the name of a foreign god, we also have the issue that Jews know Jsus was not a messiah and it would be incorrect for us to call him one.
So false god or true G-d the rule is the same -- I don't use the full name.
Please do not be offended if you see "Jsus" or "Chrstian" -- note the same is done to "All-h" or "G-d."
Why?
My "rule of thumb" is if we are speaking of a specific god (or G-d) then I err on the side of caution and use the dash or remove a letter. If we are speaking in general of "messiahs" or "gods" then I don't.
The practice comes from Deuteronomy 12:3-12:4. Jews are told to destroy everything to do with false gods. We are also told NOT to destroy anything to do with HaShem.
Since anything written can be destroyed it is erring on the side of caution to not write it in the first place. This is a rabbinical decree. The rule of thumb is that we do not explicitly writing the name of G-d anywhere other than holy books like a Siddur or Chumash (prayer book or Five Books of Moses and Haftorah).
So to be according to Hoyle the rule of writing down G-d's name applies to Hebrew and not to other languages. This is discussed in the Shach (Yoreh De'a 179:11). But I, along with many others, err on the side of caution and choose to not write down even English versions as a sign of respect for G-d.
The Talmud (Shevuot 35a-b) tells us that the rule of not writing G-d's name is specific to the seven names in the Torah. Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Yesodei HaTorah 6:1-2) agrees with your stance.
I use the word "Jsus" rather than spelling it out because some worship him as a god. The name Jesus itself is not at issue since many people (particularly Hispanics) use it as a proper name. The issue is when people use it as a name for a god. The word "god" is not a name. Jesus is a name -- but of many people alive today, not just those worshipped as gods. Those are not at issue and may be spelled out.
I extend this ban to Chrstianity. The term "christ" is Greek for messiah and again the word itself isn't at issue. But over time the term has become used as a name of the Chrstian god and thus has become a name of a god and I don't spell it out.
Sometimes I use Chrstian (without the "i") and sometimes Xian. Neither is meant to be taken as an offense. The use of an "X" is Chrstian in origen (ever hear of "Xmas"?). It comes from the first letter of chrst in greek (chrstos) is a Chi, which looks like an "X".
The possible halachic (Jewish law) problem from writing the word "chrst" out comes from the fact that "chrstos" is the Greek word for messiah (the Hebrew is "moshiach"). So not only do we have the issue of chrst being the name of a foreign god, we also have the issue that Jews know Jsus was not a messiah and it would be incorrect for us to call him one.
So false god or true G-d the rule is the same -- I don't use the full name.
Welcome to my Blog
When Jews think of Chrstianity or Chrstians think of Judaism (if they think of Judaism at all) they think that the religions are very similar with one big difference. Jews don't accept Jsus as the messiah and Chrstians do.
This myth probably stems from the term "Judeo Chrstian" or perhaps even because Chrstians accept the Jewish holy texts as "true" even though they call them old and replaced with the "new" and improved testament.
In reality Judaism and Chrstianity are very different religions. We have little in common -- and that includes how we view the messiah.
For the past eight years or so I've moderated and administered a number of counter-missionary forums. I've answered tens of thousands (or so it seems) questions from Chrstians, Muslims and Jews about Judaism in general, the suffering servant in Isaiah 53, virgin births and more.
One of those forums is now defunct (Jews for Judaism) but you can visit me at the Messiah Truth forum (http://p069.ezboard.com/bmessiahtruth) or Kosher Judaism (http://www.kosherjudaism.org/forum/)
This blog is my little shtetl on the internet to write my thoughts on these and other subjects. A shtetl for those of you unfamiliar with the term was the name given to Jewish towns in Eastern Europe prior to the Holocaust.
This myth probably stems from the term "Judeo Chrstian" or perhaps even because Chrstians accept the Jewish holy texts as "true" even though they call them old and replaced with the "new" and improved testament.
In reality Judaism and Chrstianity are very different religions. We have little in common -- and that includes how we view the messiah.
For the past eight years or so I've moderated and administered a number of counter-missionary forums. I've answered tens of thousands (or so it seems) questions from Chrstians, Muslims and Jews about Judaism in general, the suffering servant in Isaiah 53, virgin births and more.
One of those forums is now defunct (Jews for Judaism) but you can visit me at the Messiah Truth forum (http://p069.ezboard.com/bmessiahtruth) or Kosher Judaism (http://www.kosherjudaism.org/forum/)
This blog is my little shtetl on the internet to write my thoughts on these and other subjects. A shtetl for those of you unfamiliar with the term was the name given to Jewish towns in Eastern Europe prior to the Holocaust.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)