We are at Hebrews 5:7. The author tells us that when Jesus was alive he prayed super fervently to "the one who could save him from death" and his prayers were heard. Really? But he wasn't saved from death at all!
The author goes on to say that even though Jesus was a son, "he learned obedience from what he suffered." So, before he suffered, he wasn't obedient? Also, the author tells us that once Jesus was made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him." So, there was a time when Jesus wasn't perfect? There was a time when he was not the source of eternal salvation?
After all the suffering, obedience, and becoming perfect, god designated Jesus "to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek." In case you don't know about Melchizedek, read about him here. There are several possible reasons why Melchizedek is invoked here. One is that Jesus is obviously not a Levite and could not have become an earthly 2nd temple high priest in his day. Another is that the priestly order of Melchizedek seems to be legitimized by Psalm 110. So if Jesus was not a levitical priest, he must have been a Melchizedek kind of priest. That's logic. A third explanation is that this was written after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, and the levitical priesthood is pretty much defunct.
In verse 11, the author goes on to say that this stuff is hard to explain because the readers are dimwitted. By this time, they should be the ones teaching this stuff but they need to keep having it explained to them over and over again. They are like babies. They can't handle the meaty stuff, which is teaching about righteousness. The mature have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil. What do good and evil have to do with the doctrine of Jesus as high priest? Not only that, perhaps they can't retain understanding because it doesn't make sense when they go home and think about it.
We are now heading into chapter six. The author tells us we need to "leave the elementary teachings about christ and go on to maturity..." What were the elementary teachings? "Repentance from acts that lead to death, faith in god, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgement." Do any of those teachings need Jesus? Not as far as I can see. I think they all existed before Christianity came on the scene.
In verse four, the author goes on to say that if those who have once been enlightened by all the heavenly spiritual stuff fall away, they can't be brought back to repentance...(I can attest to the truth of that. I can't be brought back, because I no longer believe the nonsense.) .....because to their loss they are crucifying the son of god all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace." See what I mean about nonsense? You can't crucify a 2,000 year old dead man all over again. You can't subject him to public disgrace, he's not around to feel any shame. But his followers are. They are the ones who feel humiliated by those who "fall away" and reject the teachings about Jesus.
The author then compares those who believe to fertile land receiving the blessing of god in produce. Those who don't believe are compared to worthless land that produces thorn and thistles. "In the end it will be burned. " Burning land was/is a way of clearing it of unwanted growth. The Christ followers couldn't literally burn nonbelievers, so they had to be content with projecting the act into the future.
Till next time.
Showing posts with label crucifixion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crucifixion. Show all posts
Sunday, April 21, 2019
Saturday, March 16, 2019
Mark part twenty nine
We are at Mark 15:38 Jesus has just breathed his last. He did not ask god to forgive his executioners and those crucified with him were not told they would be with him in paradise. His side was not pierced. He said nothing but a lament. Then, according to the text, the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. This would not have been seen by anyone unless they were at the temple, and certainly not by anyone at the execution. It is also not recorded in extrabiblical history.
A centurion who heard Jesus's lament and saw him die said, "surely this man was the son of god." I don't see how he came to that conclusion. Some women watched the crucifixion from a distance. One was Mary Magdalene, who is first mentioned here. Another was Mary the mother of James, Joses, and Salome. These women were part of a group of women who had followed Jesus to Jerusalem from Galilee. They had been "taking care of his needs." This probably means they cooked and washed for him, because for some reason he couldn't do it for himself. (It couldn't be because he was sexist and thought that was women's work, could it?) The text does not say Jesus's mother or any of the twelve disciples was there.
In verse 42 we are told it was preparation day, the day before the Sabbath, Friday. Either Passover fell on a Friday that year or something about the timeline in Mark is off. It is still Passover if we follow the text. Evening is coming. The Sabbath begins at dusk. Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate and asked for Jesus's body. Pilate confirmed with the centurion that Jesus was already dead and then gave the body to Joseph. The body was wrapped in linen and put in a tomb. A stone was rolled in front of it. The text does not say the tomb belonged to Joseph of Arimathea. The two Marys previously mentioned saw where the body was laid.
We are now in chapter 16. The Sabbath is over. It is just after sunrise on the first day of the week, Sunday. Jesus has been dead approximately 39 hours, less than two full days, if you count hours. If you count the names of the days he has been dead, I guess it makes three: part of Friday, all of Saturday, and part of Sunday. But that seems like cheating to me.
The two Marys are going to the tomb to anoint the body with spices. They aren't sure who will roll the stone away from the entrance to the tomb. When they got there, the stone was already rolled away. A young man dressed in white was sitting inside the tomb. The ladies were alarmed but the young man told them not to be. He said Jesus had risen. They were to go tell Peter and the disciples that Jesus was going ahead of them to Galilee and they would see him there.
The women were naturally frightened and confused. They ran away from the tomb and told no one what had happened! So, how does the author know anything about it? This is where the story ends in the earliest manuscripts, suggesting that perhaps Jesus was never actually seen alive again.
Mark 16:9-16 appear to have been added to the text at a later date, making its events highly unlikely. We will cover that passage next time.
A centurion who heard Jesus's lament and saw him die said, "surely this man was the son of god." I don't see how he came to that conclusion. Some women watched the crucifixion from a distance. One was Mary Magdalene, who is first mentioned here. Another was Mary the mother of James, Joses, and Salome. These women were part of a group of women who had followed Jesus to Jerusalem from Galilee. They had been "taking care of his needs." This probably means they cooked and washed for him, because for some reason he couldn't do it for himself. (It couldn't be because he was sexist and thought that was women's work, could it?) The text does not say Jesus's mother or any of the twelve disciples was there.
In verse 42 we are told it was preparation day, the day before the Sabbath, Friday. Either Passover fell on a Friday that year or something about the timeline in Mark is off. It is still Passover if we follow the text. Evening is coming. The Sabbath begins at dusk. Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate and asked for Jesus's body. Pilate confirmed with the centurion that Jesus was already dead and then gave the body to Joseph. The body was wrapped in linen and put in a tomb. A stone was rolled in front of it. The text does not say the tomb belonged to Joseph of Arimathea. The two Marys previously mentioned saw where the body was laid.
We are now in chapter 16. The Sabbath is over. It is just after sunrise on the first day of the week, Sunday. Jesus has been dead approximately 39 hours, less than two full days, if you count hours. If you count the names of the days he has been dead, I guess it makes three: part of Friday, all of Saturday, and part of Sunday. But that seems like cheating to me.
The two Marys are going to the tomb to anoint the body with spices. They aren't sure who will roll the stone away from the entrance to the tomb. When they got there, the stone was already rolled away. A young man dressed in white was sitting inside the tomb. The ladies were alarmed but the young man told them not to be. He said Jesus had risen. They were to go tell Peter and the disciples that Jesus was going ahead of them to Galilee and they would see him there.
The women were naturally frightened and confused. They ran away from the tomb and told no one what had happened! So, how does the author know anything about it? This is where the story ends in the earliest manuscripts, suggesting that perhaps Jesus was never actually seen alive again.
Mark 16:9-16 appear to have been added to the text at a later date, making its events highly unlikely. We will cover that passage next time.
Thursday, March 14, 2019
Mark part 28
First, I want to apologize to regular readers for being a little late with content. I've been having my kitchen remodelled and it's been hard to find time to dedicate to the blog.
We are at Mark 15:21. Jesus has been condemned to crucifixion. He has been mocked and abused by Roman soldiers for claiming he was king of the Jews, which he appears to actually believe. Now the soldiers are leading him outside to be crucified. We are told that Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus, (as if we should know who they are), was forced to carry Jesus's cross. Alexander is never mentioned again in the NT. A Rufus is mentioned only once, in Romans 16:13.
Jesus was taken to a place called Golgotha, or the place of the skull. No one actually knows the original location of this spot. I think that is rather odd. Wouldn't it have been of great significance to the early christians? There, the soldiers offered Jesus wine mixed with myrrh, but he didn't take it. This concoction may have been offered as an analgesic. Remember, Jesus had said he would not drink wine again till he drank it in the kingdom of god. Perhaps that is why the author says he refused it.
Jesus was then crucified and the soldiers cast lots to see who would get his clothing. This is supposed to have happened at "the third hour" of the day. (There is the number three again.) By the Jewish tradition of time reckoning, the third hour was half way between dawn and noon, 9 O'clock-ish. There was a written notice of the charge against Jesus that read "the king of the Jews." Two robbers were crucified on either side of him. (Three people in a row.) Jesus was mocked and insulted by people who said that he had claimed he would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days. Back in Mark 14:58, the text says this was a false testimony. Jesus didn't actually make that claim about the temple. But the text of Mark does have him claiming to be killed and rising again after three days.
The people mocking him dared Jesus to come down from the cross and save himself. He saved others (referring to the supposed miraculous events and healings?) but he couldn't save himself. Some messiah, some king of Israel, he couldn't even save himself. They have a point. Not only that, I just realized that Jesus performed NO miracles in Jerusalem. Zip. Nada. The other people being crucified also heaped insults on Jesus. Ouch.
At the sixth hour (three hours from the initial crucifixion and also high noon) darkness came over the whole land and lasted til the ninth hour, three hours later. What was this darkness? Who knows. It can't have been an eclipse. A lunar eclipse can take a few hours to complete but doesn't happen in the day time. A solar eclipse only lasts about seven minutes. Plus there is absolutely no extrabiblical historic record of such a three hour darkness occurring around that time. That is something someone would have definitely noticed.
At the ninth hour, Jesus had been on the cross about six hours. He cried out in Aramaic, "My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?" Would he say this if he was god? How can he forsake himself? In the language that Jesus spoke, apparently he was mistakenly thought to have been calling out to Elijah. A man offered Jesus a drink from a sponge filled with wine vinegar, then told the people watching to see if Elijah would come down to take him.Surely he was being facetious. (Did the wine vinegar count as wine? Did Jesus drink it?)
With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.
We are at Mark 15:21. Jesus has been condemned to crucifixion. He has been mocked and abused by Roman soldiers for claiming he was king of the Jews, which he appears to actually believe. Now the soldiers are leading him outside to be crucified. We are told that Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus, (as if we should know who they are), was forced to carry Jesus's cross. Alexander is never mentioned again in the NT. A Rufus is mentioned only once, in Romans 16:13.
Jesus was taken to a place called Golgotha, or the place of the skull. No one actually knows the original location of this spot. I think that is rather odd. Wouldn't it have been of great significance to the early christians? There, the soldiers offered Jesus wine mixed with myrrh, but he didn't take it. This concoction may have been offered as an analgesic. Remember, Jesus had said he would not drink wine again till he drank it in the kingdom of god. Perhaps that is why the author says he refused it.
Jesus was then crucified and the soldiers cast lots to see who would get his clothing. This is supposed to have happened at "the third hour" of the day. (There is the number three again.) By the Jewish tradition of time reckoning, the third hour was half way between dawn and noon, 9 O'clock-ish. There was a written notice of the charge against Jesus that read "the king of the Jews." Two robbers were crucified on either side of him. (Three people in a row.) Jesus was mocked and insulted by people who said that he had claimed he would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days. Back in Mark 14:58, the text says this was a false testimony. Jesus didn't actually make that claim about the temple. But the text of Mark does have him claiming to be killed and rising again after three days.
The people mocking him dared Jesus to come down from the cross and save himself. He saved others (referring to the supposed miraculous events and healings?) but he couldn't save himself. Some messiah, some king of Israel, he couldn't even save himself. They have a point. Not only that, I just realized that Jesus performed NO miracles in Jerusalem. Zip. Nada. The other people being crucified also heaped insults on Jesus. Ouch.
At the sixth hour (three hours from the initial crucifixion and also high noon) darkness came over the whole land and lasted til the ninth hour, three hours later. What was this darkness? Who knows. It can't have been an eclipse. A lunar eclipse can take a few hours to complete but doesn't happen in the day time. A solar eclipse only lasts about seven minutes. Plus there is absolutely no extrabiblical historic record of such a three hour darkness occurring around that time. That is something someone would have definitely noticed.
At the ninth hour, Jesus had been on the cross about six hours. He cried out in Aramaic, "My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?" Would he say this if he was god? How can he forsake himself? In the language that Jesus spoke, apparently he was mistakenly thought to have been calling out to Elijah. A man offered Jesus a drink from a sponge filled with wine vinegar, then told the people watching to see if Elijah would come down to take him.Surely he was being facetious. (Did the wine vinegar count as wine? Did Jesus drink it?)
With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.
Tuesday, May 2, 2017
Galatians 6 part 2
*In verse 11 Paul says, "See what large letters I use as I write with my own hand!" This phrase is a non sequiter, stuck in the passage, perhaps to try to prove Paul is the actual author. Other writings ascribed to Paul indicate he had some kind of infirmity or disability. Speculation is that his eyesight was poor.
*Paul returns to the topic of circumcision and continues to discount its proponents. He says they are just circumcised to avoid persecution for identifying with the cross of christ. They don't actually obey the law themselves. The circumcision is a bragging point. Who would brag about being circumcised and why? Well, male Jewish identity was tied to that physical mark. God had given the covenant of circumcision to Abraham as an everlasting covenant. (Gen. 17:13) The descendants of Abraham were God's chosen people. How could they discern who was part of the in crowd otherwise? It seems kind of strange to think that first century males went around looking to see if their acquantances were circumcised. Who would persecute a man for not being circumcised but proclaiming himself a child of Yahweh? Certainly not a gentile.
*I notice that this letter is not directed to women at all. Women in Judaism had no commanded distinguishing feature to proclaim them as children of Yahweh. Women had no everlasting covenant of any kind. They were just fertile ground in which to plant the male seed. Circumcision was none of their business, thank goodness.
* Paul goes on to say that there aren't really any bragging rights inherent in circumcision. (Even though, as a jew, he is circumcised.) Circumcision doesn't mean anything, according to Paul. His bragging rights are in the cross of Jesus, through which the world has been crucified to Paul, and Paul to the world. (It's all about Paul.) So, because some poor guy got himself crucified, Paul has a right to brag. Paul brags because he believes the guy was crucified on behalf of Paul and Paul was "crucified" to the world, even though Paul never met the guy. He learned all about Jesus from visions, not real world experience. He believed his visions, so everyone else must too. I find it reasonable to wonder if the crucifixion only took place in Paul's head. His writings are the probably the earliest writings of Christianity, the gospels being written later. Is the whole thing a creation of Paul's imagination, through some kind of mental illness or brain anomaly?
*The thing that counts, says Paul, is a new creation. (What is a new creation?) Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule....even to the Israel of God. Okay, even Israelites are right, if they agree with Paul.
*Finally Paul tells them that nobody better mess with him, he bears the marks of Jesus on his body. This is interesting. Is he speaking physically or metaphorically? There are various speculations. My study Bible talks of scars and injuries from stonings and other persecutions. I've also heard it said that Paul bore the stigmata of Jesus's crucifixion. There is no way to know for sure. Like many passages in scripture, this statement is rather cryptic.
*Paul returns to the topic of circumcision and continues to discount its proponents. He says they are just circumcised to avoid persecution for identifying with the cross of christ. They don't actually obey the law themselves. The circumcision is a bragging point. Who would brag about being circumcised and why? Well, male Jewish identity was tied to that physical mark. God had given the covenant of circumcision to Abraham as an everlasting covenant. (Gen. 17:13) The descendants of Abraham were God's chosen people. How could they discern who was part of the in crowd otherwise? It seems kind of strange to think that first century males went around looking to see if their acquantances were circumcised. Who would persecute a man for not being circumcised but proclaiming himself a child of Yahweh? Certainly not a gentile.
*I notice that this letter is not directed to women at all. Women in Judaism had no commanded distinguishing feature to proclaim them as children of Yahweh. Women had no everlasting covenant of any kind. They were just fertile ground in which to plant the male seed. Circumcision was none of their business, thank goodness.
* Paul goes on to say that there aren't really any bragging rights inherent in circumcision. (Even though, as a jew, he is circumcised.) Circumcision doesn't mean anything, according to Paul. His bragging rights are in the cross of Jesus, through which the world has been crucified to Paul, and Paul to the world. (It's all about Paul.) So, because some poor guy got himself crucified, Paul has a right to brag. Paul brags because he believes the guy was crucified on behalf of Paul and Paul was "crucified" to the world, even though Paul never met the guy. He learned all about Jesus from visions, not real world experience. He believed his visions, so everyone else must too. I find it reasonable to wonder if the crucifixion only took place in Paul's head. His writings are the probably the earliest writings of Christianity, the gospels being written later. Is the whole thing a creation of Paul's imagination, through some kind of mental illness or brain anomaly?
*The thing that counts, says Paul, is a new creation. (What is a new creation?) Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule....even to the Israel of God. Okay, even Israelites are right, if they agree with Paul.
*Finally Paul tells them that nobody better mess with him, he bears the marks of Jesus on his body. This is interesting. Is he speaking physically or metaphorically? There are various speculations. My study Bible talks of scars and injuries from stonings and other persecutions. I've also heard it said that Paul bore the stigmata of Jesus's crucifixion. There is no way to know for sure. Like many passages in scripture, this statement is rather cryptic.
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
Galatians chapter 3 part 1
After a few detours, we are back in Galatians at chapter 3:
*Here Paul is berating the Galatians. He says they recieved the "spirit" by believing about the crucifiction of Jesus as it was portrayed when they heard it, probably from Paul, who never encountered the living Jesus, except through visions. They recieved the spirit and witnessed miracles not because they observed the law, but because they believed. Here, and in most of christianity, belief is the supreme virtue, even above any moral acts.
*Abraham is given as the epitome of righteousness obtained through belief, and anyone who believes is a metaphorical child of Abraham. Paul says everyone who relies on observing the law is under a curse because it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." (Deut 26:27, Jer. 11:3) Well, Paul, technically that means you and your gentile friends are cursed. To counter that, Paul also quotes Habbakuk 2:4 which according to Paul says "the righteous will live by faith." Looking back at that verse in Habbakuk, I find a footnote that says this passage could also say "the righteous will live by Faithfulness." Faith and Faithfulness are two different things. The first cognitive the second active, comparable to the difference between belief and ongoing obedience. One word that could send Paul's argument down the drain. Abraham didn't have to worry about the curse under the law because it didn't exist yet.
*Next Paul says Christ redeemed us from the law by becoming a curse for us. For it is written, "cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." (Deut. 21:23) Well it seems to me that being crucified is not the same as being hung. I guess it doesn't matter because it's still on a piece of wood. What about all the other innocent people who were hung or crucified, were they cursed for our sake? How does that work? We are cursed by not following the law properly, then we are not cursed because Jesus was cursed for us, then we are cursed for trying to follow the law anyway? I think Paul is trying to say that Jesus's crucifixion nullified the law and its curse, essentially rolling back to before there was a law, when Faith was the supreme virtue. But then he wants to claim that curse still holds if you don't believe in Jesus crucified.
*Abraham, if he existed, didn't believe in Jesus, he believed in El/Yahweh. Can a person just believe in that and be free from the curse of the law? It seems that Paul says you have to actually believe there was a redeemer of the curse for the nullification of the curse to work. It's like your mind flicks an invisible curse switch. Otherwise, you're toast.
*Here Paul is berating the Galatians. He says they recieved the "spirit" by believing about the crucifiction of Jesus as it was portrayed when they heard it, probably from Paul, who never encountered the living Jesus, except through visions. They recieved the spirit and witnessed miracles not because they observed the law, but because they believed. Here, and in most of christianity, belief is the supreme virtue, even above any moral acts.
*Abraham is given as the epitome of righteousness obtained through belief, and anyone who believes is a metaphorical child of Abraham. Paul says everyone who relies on observing the law is under a curse because it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." (Deut 26:27, Jer. 11:3) Well, Paul, technically that means you and your gentile friends are cursed. To counter that, Paul also quotes Habbakuk 2:4 which according to Paul says "the righteous will live by faith." Looking back at that verse in Habbakuk, I find a footnote that says this passage could also say "the righteous will live by Faithfulness." Faith and Faithfulness are two different things. The first cognitive the second active, comparable to the difference between belief and ongoing obedience. One word that could send Paul's argument down the drain. Abraham didn't have to worry about the curse under the law because it didn't exist yet.
*Next Paul says Christ redeemed us from the law by becoming a curse for us. For it is written, "cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." (Deut. 21:23) Well it seems to me that being crucified is not the same as being hung. I guess it doesn't matter because it's still on a piece of wood. What about all the other innocent people who were hung or crucified, were they cursed for our sake? How does that work? We are cursed by not following the law properly, then we are not cursed because Jesus was cursed for us, then we are cursed for trying to follow the law anyway? I think Paul is trying to say that Jesus's crucifixion nullified the law and its curse, essentially rolling back to before there was a law, when Faith was the supreme virtue. But then he wants to claim that curse still holds if you don't believe in Jesus crucified.
*Abraham, if he existed, didn't believe in Jesus, he believed in El/Yahweh. Can a person just believe in that and be free from the curse of the law? It seems that Paul says you have to actually believe there was a redeemer of the curse for the nullification of the curse to work. It's like your mind flicks an invisible curse switch. Otherwise, you're toast.
Saturday, March 26, 2016
What happened on Saturday?
Yesterday was Good Friday, when Jesus was supposedly crucified. Tomorrow is Resurrection Sunday, when Jesus supposedly rose from the dead. But what about Saturday? It was the only complete 24 hour day of the supposed 3 days Jesus spent in the grave. What was going on? Well, we aren't really told much of anything about that day in the scriptures.
If the disciples were obedient to the law of Moses, they were not doing anything that could be classified as work. They were spending their day in forced idleness. However, according to Matthew 27 the day after the crucifixion is when the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate and requested that the tomb be sealed and guarded. Were the chief priests and Pharisees breaking the Sabbath? Jesus had eaten the passover meal on the first day of the passover week with his disciples in Matthew 26.The day of the crucifixion was technically still the Passover, since days were measured from twilight to twilight. It also had been preparation day, as the day before the Sabbath, Saturday, was called. The sequence of holy days can get confusing as they sometimes overlap, but that is the only way to get Matthew's account to make any sense, if it is assumed to be correct. That first day of the Passover week should have been a non work day as well, according to Leviticus 23. The Pharisees and chief priests should have been holding sacred assembly, instead of trying to get Jesus crucified. It is all very confusing.
Mark has the same timeline as Matthew: 1. The day the Passover lamb is killed and disciples look for a place to eat the Passover. 2. Twilight Passover meal/ betrayal/crucifixion/burial/ day before sabbath 3. Sabbath. 4. Empty tomb Sunday. Mark says nothing at all about the sabbath sealing and guarding of the tomb.
Luke also has the same timeline. He also neglects to mention the sabbath sealing and guarding of the tomb. However, he makes sure to mention that the women who had been with Jesus spent the sabbath resting according to the commandment. Here Joseph of Aramathea wraps Jesus's body but the women prepared the spices.
John has a very different story. Before the Passover, there is a meal with the disciples where Jesus washes their feet. This is work and would not have been done on the first day of the Passover week. Then comes a lot of talk, the betrayal, arrest, the bringing before Pilate, and the crucifixion. In chapter 18 verse 28, it is made clear that the Passover meal has not happened yet, because it says the Jews were anxious to avoid ceremonial uncleanness so they could eat the Passover. Chapter 19 verse 20 says that was the day of preparation for the sabbath. The Passover apparently fell on the sabbath (Saturday) in this account. Here Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus wrap and prepare the body with spices ( no mention of the women) and place it in a tomb, because the sabbath was coming. But this act would have made them ceremonially unclean and unable to eat the Passover/sabbath meal. John says nothing about the sabbath day itself.
Needless to say, in spite of the fact that John's version appears to have a different timeline, christians have come up with many ways to reconcile the accounts, including copying errors, confusion with the number of days in the Passover week, what day of the week the Passover started on, etc. However, some scholars feel that John's timeline is a deliberate attempt to create the image of Jesus as the (Passover) lamb of god which takes away the sins of the world, as mention in John 1. The other gospels do not use that phraseology. Instead they have Jesus giving his body, and his disciples symbolically eating it, at the Passover meal aka Last Supper. John does not.
There are many extrabiblical teachings and traditions about that Saturday's events, not usually in protestant circles though. I never heard a word about it for the forty years I was a christian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)