From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Focus on Crucifiction (was: Cruxed for Prophecy?)
Keywords: crucifiction prophecy sacrifice hebrew
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Distribution: world,local
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:55:41 GMT

In article <3OCT199211382553@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>In article <roelle.718068597@uars_mag>, roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes...
>>One major target group for very early evangelists (e.g. writers of the
>>gospels) were the Hebrews.  In their effort  to convert Hebrews to
>>Christianity they based their argument on two important points.  These
>>were than Jesus C.  was:
>> 
>>   (1) a most perfect sacrifice (the one to end all sacrifices), and
>>   (2) a high priest more worthy than any previous priest (including 
>>       Aaron, Melchizidek, and even Moses himself).
>> 
>>These points are discussed at length in the _Epistle_to_the_Hebrews_,
>>found in the New Testament.  In order to be convincing it was
>>necessary to point out passages in scripture that support the notion
>>that JC had indeed been their Messiah.
>> 
>>To be fit for sacrifice, an animal had to be perfect.  The following
>>OT passage is similar to others, and is from Leviticus 3 (KJV):
>> 
>>6: And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace offering unto the Lord 
>>   be of the flock; male or female, he shall offer it without blemish.
>>7: If he offer a lamb for his offering, then shall he offer it before 
>>   the Lord.
>>8: And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it 
>>   before the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron's sons shall 
>>   sprinkle the blood thereof round about upon the altar.
>> 
>>A sheep herder in the mountains may have a lamb that falls and breaks
>>its leg.  He may as well use it next time he needs to sacrifice,
>>right?  No, wrong -- an animal with broken bones makes not a suitable
>>sacrifice. If Jesus had been stoned and had his bones broken, the
>>sacrifice argument would not have been valid.
>
>Read verse six again.  The sacrifice must be "without blemish."
>Jesus, according to the gospels, was scourged, beaten, and bloody.
>Therefore, by your own reasoning, the sacrifice argument is not valid.

Surely any lamb that is sacrificed or killed has a "blemish" after
the sacrifice.  I believe that the term "without blemish" refers
to the state of the lamb before it is sacrificed.  If one takes
Jesus's suffering and death from the scourging, beating and
crucifixion as the the sacrificial act itself then there is no
contradiction here.  However, Exodus 12:46 states when talking about
the sacrificial Passover lamb after the sacrifice:

(NIV)	EXO 12:46   "It must be eaten inside one house; take none of the meat 
                     outside the house. Do not break any of the bones."

Therefore, in that sense, Curtis is quite correct.

>
>Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU


-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic