It was a sin offering to end all sin offerings for repentance and confession or absolution of sin.
The sin offering in the Nazarite vow was a sin offering for another purpose, which is open to debate.
My own view would be that the sin offering of the Nazarite vow shows that the Nazarite could not justify himself regardless of his works. So this is saying the exact opposite of what Muslims and Jews want to see in this context.
So there is no record of any Jew in the Jerusalem church repenting and confessing his sin through a sin offering.
The final nail in this coffin is that the Gentiles went straight in to the full covenant blessings by faith alone. As Cornelius shows. And the Samaritans who were not Jews either. They were not allowed to worship in the temple. They believed and were filled with the Holy Spirit:
14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Repentance can be expressed in different ways. Nazarite offerings is one way. Fasting is another way as demonstrated by the repentance of the people of Nineveh in the book of Jonah.They did not offer animal sacrifices even though they had plenty of animals. Neither of this means anything without sincerity and belief.
If Acts 21 is true it shows James and the Jerusalem church did not believe that Jesus’s sacrifice abolished all the sacrifices including sin offerings.
James asked Paul to facilitate the fulfilment of the Nazarite vow including the sin offering as a public demonstration of commitment to the law including sin offerings. This goes against what is found in the Pauline corpus about the law being a curse which the Jews were liberated from by the crucifixion.
I believe that Isaiah (66:17) is a good a argument as well against pauline belief since God will destroy those who eat ( pig flesh) at the end of time.
“Pauline belief” = ?
Jesus Himself declared all foods clean – Mark 7:19
God Himself declared all foods clean and all cultures open to God’s love and forgiveness in Acts chapters 10-11 and 15
And Peter, the Jewish disciple, had to learn that lesson in those chapters.
so, it is not just a “pauline belief”.
off topic, but who designed and created every pig that has ever graced the earth with its spare ribs?
Liked by 2 people
Brilliant one Burhanuddin. Truly brilliant youtube. Glory be to God.
Good one Burhanuddin: BTW in another thread this is what I posted.
I am not sure our Christians commentators are following what I am asking. I am not discussing whether Jesus died on cross or otherwise. Lets assume that crucifixion is true and rising from the dead is also true.
My argument is so what? Did Jesus ever ask you to believe in his death or resurrection for your salvation? I mean you can find plenty of examples of Prophets being tortured, abused, harmed or even killed. There are cases in bible where people rose from dead. but so what. If believing in ” death or resurrection of Jesus” is the vehicle for your salvation why believing in death and suffering and even raising from dead of others is not vehicle of your salvation. why play fast and loose with events in bible? Why insert your own meaning to events in Bible by your own liking?
And how bout these events. You can add dozens more those this list
Jesus cursed a fig tree
Jesus rode donkey into Jerusalem
Jesus drove daemons out
Jesus turned water into wine
Can you say that believing in any of these events is vehicle for your salvation? if not then why not? After all crucifixion is just another event in life of Jesus. Nothing more.
Before you bring in St Paul, please realize that he started preaching many years after departure of Jesus and his formula of salvation was not known either to Jesus or to his disciples. So what will happen to Jesus (he was a man too according to your belief) and his followers who died or were even killed by St Paul (by his own admission)?
So if you want to post a response, please respond to what is being asked.
@RationalMuslim I will respectfully agree to disagree, your arguments are full of holes .
surah 19 (Mary) verse 33 the Quran says
“Peace on me the day I was born and the day I die and on the day I shall be raised alive”
And read a little further in Surah 19 – “It befits not Allah that he should beget a son” 19:34 and Jesus says, “And verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship him (alone). 19:35
You failed to address Rational Muslim’s central Question – “Did Jesus ever ask you to believe in his death or resurrection for your salvation?”
Seems like it is your Church Doctrines that are “full of holes.”
Jesus said ” I am the way, the truth and the life, No one goes to the father except by me” John 3:16
John 10:30 I and the father are one.
John 11:25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me will live, even though he dies
I can go on for ever… but I have no intention in starting a flame war. I respect your faith in the name of humanity…. but I dont agree with your statements
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” (John 3:16-18 NIV)
I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6 NIV)
when all else fails, quote scripture and preach.
Thanks for this comment from you: “I respect your faith in the name of humanity…. but I dont agree with your statements”
Please know that that feeling is mutual.
Liked by 1 person
right, we can respectfully agree to disagree
@Prashant : I hope you realize after giving all the quotes, that is no definitive teaching from Jesus where he teaches salvation through “belief in his death and resurrection”.
These are made up ideas by later churches influenced by Paul. If there were any evidence, you would have found them. But there is none. May Allah guide you to right path.
I write this with respect.
@Prashant: Do you see in the verse that you quoted there are two places where Jesus commands/demands that “Whoever believes in him ” . but not in his death and resurrection.
That is the key. It is to believe in him, his God, his teachings, his commandments, his lifestyle. But not in his “death and resurrection”.
I hope get this point.
He asked Thomas to believe in his death and resurrection.
The main point of the gospels, all 4 of them, is leading up to the cross, death, and resurrection of Christ. So when it says over and over “repent and believe” it includes that – whole chapters are about all of that – you cannot demand a verse with your own demand for exact words, when the whole books are telling you to believe in Christ and His work on the cross and His resurrection.
Repent and believe the gospel – Mark 1:15 – means all of it.
I already proved that Luke 24:25-27 and 24:46-47 and Mark 10:45 and 14:24 and 14:60-64 shows this anyway; along with Acts 2 and Acts 13:28-39.
“Repentance can be expressed in different ways. Nazarite offerings is one way. ”
There is nothing that speaks of repentance in connection with the Nazarite vow. It is about consecration to some form of sacred service.
The sin offering of the Nazarite shows that he could not be saved by any good works performed in connection with his vow.
The apostles preached the gospel of the death and resurrection of Jesus as described in the book of Acts.
Im pretty sure the whole of the book the Epistle to the Hebrews is about the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ.
24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
The obvious and rational implication of this text is that Thomas will not believe that Jesus rose from the dead until he sees the body of Jesus for himself and puts his hand on the body of Jesus to feel the wounds that were left after the crucifixion.
It is obvious to any intelligent and unbiased being what Jesus was proving to Thomas for the purpose of causing him to believe in his bodily resurrection.
If you keep reading all of Acts 21 to the end of chapter 28, you will see that this incident was what led to Paul’s arrest and being taken to Rome.
It is historical narrative (what actually happened), and took place around 57 AD; after he wrote the book of Romans (Acts 20:2-3). It is not a teaching passage; so Romans 6:10; 1 Peter 3:18 and Hebrews 7:27; 8:1-13; 9:12; 9:26; 10:10-14 (once for all time) are the teaching principle, and the fact that Paul goes along with James in order to be sensitive to the Jews does not contradict, since Paul may have been wrong in doing that (we don’t know as the text does not say; only that it caused other Jews to attack him and lead to his arrest); – but God allowed him to do it in order to get him arrested, taken to Rome, and give 2 more opportunities for him to explain himself and his testimony, and in Acts 9, in Acts 22 and 26.
So, Paul was being sensitive to the Jewish disciples in Jerusalem and to James’ advice (see 1 Corinthians 9:19-23), but the unbelieving Jews from Asia (Acts 21:27) saw him there in the temple and assumed he was defiling the temple by bring Gentiles into the temple.
This led to a mob scene and beating Paul and then the Romans arrested him (Acts 21:33) – the rest is about Paul’s defense (apologia / απολογια ) and opportunity to give his defense of his faith in Christ and as a Roman Citizen, to appeal to Caesar and go to Rome. It fits with the purpose of the whole book of Acts to show how the gospel spread from Jerusalem to the uttermost parts of the earth, Rome being the capital of the pagan Empire at the time and symbol of the gospel spreading into major Gentile lands. (see Acts 23:11)
It seems that the text in Acts 21 does not answer the question as to whether Paul (and James’ counsel and desire) was contradicting the book of Hebrews (written later in AD 68) or Romans 6:10 (written a little before the incident) or 1 Peter 3:18 (once for all time, used there also for Christ’s work on the cross, 1 Peter written around 64 AD.)
The apostle Paul may have thought in his mind, “I am doing this to be a good witness to the Jews; and I take these sacrifices as symbolic looking back to the sacrifice of Christ; and for the opportunity to be able to explain that these sacrifices are pointing to Christ as the final sacrifice”. The temple was still standing and operating, so it seems like a transitional period.
But neither James nor Paul require the Gentiles (Greeks, Romans, other cultures) to do the sacrifices. So it seems to do the ritual to respect the Jews.
Just as I would never eat pork or drink wine in front of Muslims (even though I am free to do that – 1 Cor. 9:19-23), and I would take off my shoes when I visit a mosque – I am respecting their custom, even though that does not mean I agree with everything said inside the mosque.
I Cor. 9:19-23 is the principle.
But later, Jews who have come to believe Christ is the final sacrifice in Hebrews (68 AD), are told that they cannot reject that and go back to the temple and do sacrifices. Maybe one of the purposes of Hebrews and that it was later after the incident in Acts 21 in 57 AD, is to show that they (Jerusalem church and James) should not do that anymore.
God then destroyed the temple in 70 AD to show that Christ was indeed the final sacrifice.
“God in His mercy rewards sincere good deeds.”
Christians believe that too. With what though? Not justification.
Where does it say in the OT that God rewards good deeds with justification or eternal life?
“Article says: It was a sin offering to end all sin offerings for repentance and confession or absolution of sin.”
There are too many theological errors in the article above.
(i) The end of the Temple just marked the end of “Solomonic Judaism” which is based on the centralised Temple.
(ii) Jesus is typical of Davidic Judaism, not Solomonic Judaism. Kingdom of Israel under David does not have any centralised Temple yet.
(iii) Jesus and Jews of his time didn’t sacrifice the annual Passover Lambs at the centralised Temple, but in their own houses.
(iv) Since the time of Aaron to David the king, the groups of Levites didn’t work their Priesthood duties at the temple (since there was no temple yet) to minister all daily, weekly, monthly and yearly feasts, sacrifices and rites. They just did their duties at the city assembly and regional synagogues.
Moreover, Peter still did a sacrifice on the animals thrice (fourfooted beasts, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air), and eat them as well.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
“Ken Temple says: The apostle Paul may have thought in his mind, “I am doing this to be a good witness to the Jews; and I take these sacrifices as symbolic looking back to the sacrifice of Christ; and for the opportunity to be able to explain that these sacrifices are pointing to Christ as the final sacrifice”. The temple was still standing and operating, so it seems like a transitional period.”
The early Christians wholly abandoned Paul alone after realising how much deceitful and wrong he was. Sin of Paul can be categorised as a cowardice of “Acta facientes” (making false acts to save their lives).
Lapsi were classified into several groups:
Sacrificati: Those who had actually offered a sacrifice to the idols. Christians that made sacrifices, especially to Roman gods, were only offered absolution on their deathbeds.
Thurificati: Those who had burnt incense on the altar before the statues of the gods. From Latin thurificare – “burn incense”
Libellatici: Those who had drawn up attestation (libellus), or had, by bribing the authorities, caused such certificates to be drawn up for them, representing them as having offered sacrifice, without, however, having actually done so. A two-year sanction was imposed as penance. From Latin libellus – “little book; letter; certificate”
Acta facientes: Those that made false statements or other acts to save their lives. From Latin – “those doing the acts”
Traditores: Those who gave up sacred scriptures, artifacts and/or revealed names of fellow Christians. From Latin tradere – “hand over; deliver; betray”
By contradicting his own preaching in the temple, Paul was proved to be a cheap charlatan and evil impostor by accepting the Moses’ oral-traditions which James decided for him. Eventually, no one accompanied Paul, hence he was arrested and nearly lynched by Jewish mobs.
At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.
Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only.
Early Christians still observed the most important Jewish rite (Feast of Tabernacles) as well as the Passover (Pentecost), by purchasing the Paschal lambs, sacrificing the lamb, and eating it as the feast on a day when Jews mourned.
They eat the Paschal lambs still.
Epiphanius (Panarion – book II and book III) 310-403 AD
For they choose to celebrate the Passover with the Jews – that is, they contentiously celebrate the Passover at the same time that the Jews are holding their Festival of Unleavened Bread. And indeed, it is true that this used to be the church’s custom – even though they tell churchmen a slanderous thing in this regard and say, “You abandoned the fathers’ Paschal rite in Constantine’s time from deference to the emperor, and changed the day to suit the emperor.” And some, again, declare with a contentiousness of their own, “You changed the Passover to Constantine’s birthday”.
And much could be said about the good the fathers did – or rather, the good God did through them – by arriving at the absolutely correct determination, for the church, of this all venerable,
all-holy Paschal Feast, its celebration after the equinox, which is the day on which the date of the fourteenth of the lunar month falls.
Now how can this (i.e., celebrating on the Jewish date) be done? The same apostles say, When they feast, mourn ye for them with fasting, for they crucified Christ on the day of the feast; and when they mourn on the Day of Unleavened Bread and eat with bitter herbs, then feast ye.
But the church observes the Paschal festival, that is, the week which is designated even by the apostles themselves in the Ordinance, beginning with the second day of the week, the purchase of the lamb. And the lamb is publicly slaughtered if the fourteenth of the month falls on the second day of the week – or if it falls on the third, the fourth, the fifth, the eve of the Sabbath or the Sabbath, for the six days are designated for this purpose.
Let’s see whether the man who said that, didn’t keep the Passover himself. Scripture says, “He hasted to keep the Feast of Pentecost at Jerusalem.” But what Pentecost was Paul keeping if he hadn’t kept the Passover?
And who, anywhere in the world, does not agree that Wednesdays and Fridays are designated as fasts in the church? If, indeed, I need to speak of the ordinance of the apostles, they plainly decreed there that Wednesdays and Fridays be fasts at all times except Pentecost, and directed that nothing at all be eaten on the six days of the Passover except bread, salt and water;16 and which day to keep, and that we break our fast on the night before the Lord’s Day.
Methodius, Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 9, Ch 1.
When the fruits of the earth have been gathered in, we are commanded to keep the feast to the Lord , which signifies that, when this world shall be terminated at the seventh thousand years, when God shall have completed the world, He shall rejoice in us.
Eusebius. Church History. Book V, Chapter 25, on Polycrates.
All these observed the fourteenth day of the Passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘ We ought to obey God rather than man’.
Despite its name, yet the Feast of Tabernacles requires the continuous sacrifice of animals for the burnt offerings from the 1st day to on the 8th day.
34 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, The fifteenth day of this seventh month shall be the feast of Tabernacles for seven days unto the LORD.35 On the first day shall be an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.36 Seven days ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD: on the eighth day shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD: it is a solemn assembly; and ye shall do no servile work therein.
When or after all biblical argument fails, the Trinitarians would use the last desperate trick: using a sentimental argument. They claim Jesus gave them himself.
But, did he?
Firstly, at most yes Jesus just gave himself to Adam and Jesus’ own ancestors, but not to the sinners who come after the crucifixion.
In the Moses’ sacrificial law, the animal sacrifice doesn’t give itself to the later sinners after it was slaughtered. The flesh or blood – either animal’s or Jesus’ – is not divine, it can’t be timelessly intact for every generations.
Secondly, Paul just dismisses a role of both the sacrifice of Moses’ Law and the crucifixion of Jesus by rather mentioning a shocking statement that the forgiveness of sin actually comes upon resurrection, not on a death in flesh.
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
Hence, with or without offering up himself to the sinners, their sins do not a bit get purged by the flesh, blood, or death of the Christ.
Forgiveness has nothing to do with sacrifice or giving in the self.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.