Talk:Lamb of God

message: Pastor Rob Smith:
I started to change the explanation about the Book that the lamb received from HE that sat on the throne.  Where in Revelations does it declare that the book with the names is the same book as the book of the seals of the destruction of this world?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSmith1982 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I hope you'll excuse any violation of custom/norms on this talk page; this is actually my first "contribution" to Wikipedia. I have done and continue to do extensive research on Calvin, and my review of biblical literature usually begins with what Calvin had to say. A friend asked me to do some research on the historic symbolism behind the "Lamb of God" in various Christian traditions, and it led me to this article.
Under the Christology heading, it is written that,
 
Reference number 19 is to Stephen Edmondson's (of Virginia Theological Seminary) 2004 book Calvin's Christology. The author of the encyclopedia text sourced p. 91 to evince the quoted material above, and while I have not accessed or read reference number 18, The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures by Hughes Oliphant Old, I can attest that p. 91 of Edmondson's text is absolutely unconnected to the statement that "...Calvin presented the same [i.e. St. Anselm (from previous ¶)] Christological view of "The Lamb as the agent of God by arguing..." Searching the index of the text for important keywords like Herod, trial, and Pilate referenced in the quote yields no attributions to p. 91. In addition, the word "scapegoat" or any meaningful derivations do not have any attribution to p. 91 in the index or in the table of contents. In fact, the new sub-heading for p. 91 in the paperback edition is "The Sacerdotal Office in the Gospel Commentaries." Edmondson mentions the word "scapegoat" ostensibly once in the text, on p. 61,
While Edmondson himself is somewhat general, his point seems to be that the scope of Calvin's discussion includes a few remarks on the "meaning of...the scapegoat on the day of Atonement..." This is all well and good, but a reader of the article who finished the Christology section would come across the following,
 
Again, reference number 19 is, interestingly enough, attributed to this line of argument that Calvin in some sense rejects a symbolic resemblance of the scapegoat to Jesus Christ. In light of the observation's I've made about the content of p. 91, this is troubling in and of itself. However, if we are to go off of p. 61, this line of reasoning can not be drawn by any sort of reasonable text analysis. In fact, Edmondson himself references Calvin's own commentary on Leviticus, which is publicly available. Both Calvin and Edmondson's reading of Leviticus seem to argue exactly against what the texts to which reference number 19 is attributed seems to suggest.
On his commentary on Leviticus 16:7, Calvin writes,
If the contributor to the encyclopedia was attempting to equate St. Anselm's Christological perspective on the symbology of the Lamb, Calvin's own words (my own emphasis in bold) seem to directly contradict this. It is not so much that Christ couldn't serve as a typology of scapegoat because "he knew his role as the Lamb of God," whereas the Levitical scapegoat did not (obviously), rather that Calvin himself subscribes to a prefigurative and symbolical interpretive framework on the Lamb metaphor.
Since I'm very new to Wikipedia and haven't actually edited the visible text of an entry, I would like to have some feedback on my observations on this potential reference discrepancy. Thank you for your time.
StylishTheology 08:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential Citation Discrepancy & Misidentification of Calvin's Understanding of the Scapegoat 

message: Much of this article implies that Christianity is defined, at its core, by a phrase used in only one of the Gospels. Although Paul later picked up on it in a letter, the other three Gospels do not remotely suggest that the Crucifixion was some sort of grisly animal sacrifice, but rather that Jesus was a martyr for a viewpoint that was considered heretical, and that part of the reason the Romans killed him is that he was attracting a lot of crowds and was perceived as a threat to the security of the Roman occupation of the region. The Gospel Of John is considered to be more flowery and poetic than the other three, and it is a mistake to attach greater importance to it, although it is indeed a mistake that is widespread in many Christian denominations. I think that should be pointed out in the article, i.e. that it is only certain denominations that have elevated the Gospel of John to a position above the other three. The idea of a blood sacrifice is quite appalling to many Christians.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.123.145 (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only John said this.