Jesus in the Passover Lamb (Page 6)

DontNeedChrist:

You don't decide. I decide. You've had your chance for years to know the other side of the argument but you were too trigger happy with the delete button. Now for some reason you depend on the written argument instead of absorbing the arguments themselves. Now they're gone and you're begging for them to come back. Pathetic.

Apokalupto: I'm-not-going-to-delete-your-arguments just post them for heavens sake!

Apokalupto: The New Testament says that the lamb was slain from the "foundation" of the world meaning from the beginning. Revelation 13:8 The idea was always intended in Gods plan.

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

The very first lamb was sacrificed by Abel and it pleased God. Genesis 4:2 & 4:4 This shows that God is pleased with lamb sacrifice regardless if Egypt made sheep into an actual object of worship.

As we know, Israel was in bondage in Egypt, the lamb was an essential component to them escaping from Egypt alive, for without the lamb not even Moses could lead them out alive since Gods wrath would be on them.

There are a few things encoded in the symbolism of the PL, (Passover Lamb)
1. Sinlessness,
2. Deity,
3. Becoming the object of sin
4. And ultimately cleansing from sin and giving life.

1. Sinlessness

If the symbolism was merely that of an Egyptian sheep god and nothing more then why the need for them to take the nicest looking lamb "without blemish"? Exodus 12:5
and make this "Egyptian god" better? Taking a lamb without blemish for a sacrifice to atone for sin was done for other sacrifices therefor showing that the "without blemish" has nothing to do with any god from Egypt, it's something the God of Israel did and ordained it to be that way because it was representative of something, namely the lamb without blemish represents being without sin, moral perfection.

2. Deity

Since the Egyptians viewed this animal as a god it takes on the quality of being deity in it's spiritual symbolism (for the moment we are not considering it as pagan, merely "deity" so that it can be unpacked and the symbols can have their own meaning and be understood). If it were the literal thing itself, nothing would ever make sense. God would eternally want Israel to eat Egyptians gods to nourish their bodies with protein. It goes beyond that shallow meaning. Keep in mind that Abel sacrificed a lamb from the beginning, this is not a new practice, it has always pleased God and that is why it pleased him here.

3. Object of sin
the very fact that the Egyptians deified it, it became an object of sin especially if they had worshipped it.

4. Cleansing sin and giving life

Exodus 12:22 And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood (of the passover lamb) that is in the bason, and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning.

"Ye shall take a bunch of hyssop and dip it in the blood" the blood is a sign that your house was covered and would not be under Gods judgment. Secondarily take note that God told them to use "hyssop" branches to cover the door with the blood. Right now we can already see that the blood was being used for their salvation and you will see how the hyssop was used in cleansing rituals therefor taking the spiritual symbol of cleansing or purifying.

Leviticus 14:4 Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be -cleansed- two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and -hyssop:-

Leviticus 14:6 As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the -hyssop,- and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water: (The cleansing nature of the hyssop and blood together being put over the bird, or in other words being put over us and washing us)

Leviticus 14:7 And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field. (The the living bird was let loose representing the life of the new believer who is set free and who was cleansed by being “under” the blood of the slain bird/Christ. Take note that the death of a bird was used for the life of another bird, 1 bird had to die for another bird. Same same. Man for all of mankind.

Hyssop was not only used when cleansing from disease, but David figuratively uses it in his Psalm to cleanse him from sin. Psalm 51:7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. – Read the passage, David wants his heart to be pure and clean and figuratively uses hyssop to demonstrate symbolically that cleansing and purifying process.

You see how in the law they dipped the blood of the animal in hyssop, this wasn't only a Passover lamb ritual, and it further demonstrates that the Passover lamb was not just some literal act, it had very deep spiritual symbolic meaning. The figurative cleansing nature of hyssop WITH blood is essential to understanding the Passover. The two together represent "life cleansing blood" because the blood of the lamb represented their salvation from judgment, and the hyssop gives the cleansing symbolism to the blood. Twofold meaning.

Let's take a further look at how blood was viewed symbolically and how it was used.

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.

The life of the flesh is in the blood, therefore the blood represents "life."

Unpacking the symbolism has made it clear and manifest that the NT derived meaning directly from the OT and Jesus fulfilled it to a T.

So we have Jesus without blemish, without sin, who is God manifest in the flesh, two natures, lamb and Deity, man and God, who was slain for our sins by putting the blood on the door post of our hearts so we could live and not be under Gods judgment. He became sin for us by taking the sin of the world and becoming that “object of sin” like it was viewed in Exodus, and condemning it to judgment in our stead.

2Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him (Jesus) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

In other words, when Jesus was on the cross you saw your sin on Him, He was full of sin when he was lifted up and punished on our behalf. This symbol in Egypt that God used was not without a very deep meaning and in the NT it has nothing at all to do with pagan Egyptian gods. It’s the spiritual and symbolic aspects that tell the message, just as the serpent in the wilderness didn’t actually represent a serpent, it represented Israel’s own sin lifted up on a pole, and any who looked at it were healed from the poisonous snake bites. Same symbolic meaning same message, same truth, the serpent was an object of sin, their own sin, they had to see their sin being punished.

1Corinthians 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:


If you did not have the lambs blood covered over you (your door post) then you would be met with Gods wrath. This is the message in the NT, If we don’t have Jesus blood cleansing us and covering us, and put on the door post of your hearts, then you are under Gods wrath, we would not be saved from Egypt which spiritually bondage and sin.

DontNeedChrist:

You know the Jewish POV. Not only have I shared it with you but many others here repeatedly for years and years. If you haven't retained any of that information then you have nobody to blame but yourself.

Apokalupto: I'm not asking for the Jewish POV, you already posted that, I'm asking for scriptural arguments, based IN the word of God, not based in Jewish opinion of which there are many. You will notice throughout I have asked for Biblical arguments of which NO ONE has ever presented me any good Biblical arguments against the OP.

DontNeedChrist:

I don't ever share my opinion. I share the Jewish POV backed by scripture. Are you new here?

DontNeedChrist:

If you're not interested in the Jewish POV regarding this topic then my place is not here.

Apokalupto: Okie dokie artichoke

Apokalupto: Feel free to post your arguments based on Bible scripture any time.

GeraldtheGnome: We've all made mistakes on here and elsewhere. One was from 'The Star of David' with his mocking, yet error ridden sentence about how according to him I made sense, followed up by bravo as a sentence on it's own. Yes, as opposed to the belief that you have that there is a creator god around and that he created Earth from nothing and that he did all sorts of other magic tricks that I haven't mentioned on here. Yes, that makes so much sense, bravo indeed.

You see, there is the problem, your so busy believing in what you haven't worked out is just made up that anything that opposes that way of thinking never makes any sense to you whatsoever. Also technically I never posted on here because I refuse go along with the added on internet use of the term posted.

To Apokalupto. If the Star of David fan got together with me to come up with something worthwhile then it would only be because he discarded his delusional way of thinking before that. Even if I put aside the fact that each god in every religious story is made up and just centred on everything from his favourite book and then looked at your favourite book as well as the way you think about it then it would not show that anything that came before anything in The New Testament has anything to do with Christ by any name. Any of the 'books' before The New Testament was around does not include anything about the claimed chosen one, nor does any bit of it have that one day the chosen one will be born because a virgin became magically pregnant due to any god. Why do you even think otherwise ? I am waiting for a response to that.

To the Jew. Just use English, the word Christian for example is not a word that you have any reason to avoid using. You are right though, he disregards anything that you told him.

To Apokalupto. Just work out if he did tell you everything that he claims that he did, there is no need for any requests from him if he has already provided what he claims he has provided to you.

To Mister leave Christ out of it. As you know I am not a fan of the added internet use of the words post and threads, I do however agree with you that he deleted a lot of responses that you have made in his forums. There is no need for complete words in uppercase letters though.

To Apokalupto. If he was off topic or unfair in any way with any response then you were right to delete them, if you deleted even one that was not unfair or off topic then you shouldn't have deleted at least one response from him. Never use a question mark when you aren't making a question in the future. You made that mistake at least once on this forum after all, over on number five to be exact.

To leave Christ out of it. Using something along the lines they were insults or mockery in your sentence as you did over on at number five on here did not make any sense. This means that you are a hypocrite by telling me that I haven't made sense at times when your entire paragraph back there starting with the words 'My words' did not make any sense at all. Just have a look at it again.

Topic: Religion

Other things, such as the use of three full stops in a row, in that paragraph did not make any sense at all. This is a text based site, none of us have had a conversation on here. Using the word so rather than and at the front of a sentence is a better thing to do. Seriously now, how many times have you used the word and when you started talking to someone face to face ? Hopefully you never did. I don't use the word posts, so in a sense I never deleted posts. I have however deleted things by both of you, now if you were both critical, even harsh but still fair instead of being unfair or off topic (if the latter ever happened) then none of the messages by either of you would have been deleted.

To Apokalupto. None of us have literally spoken on this text based site.
DontNeedChrist:

To the Jew. You had to use bloody Latin for no good reason, yes I know what the words mean though, that's not the point. Just another thing, the 'word' repost is not proper word. A chat room should also be just a physical room where people chat, not a damn section on an internet site.

I wish both of you would just use actual words instead of using letters in capitals. for example the words point of view is not something to avoid on here.

Apokalupto: It's all about Christ.

GeraldtheGnome: Your forum is, not all of The Bible though. Seeing Jesus in the Passover Lamb is like seeing a vision of the Virgin Mary in the tea leaves of a tea cup, it’s just a case that what was seen at the time was not what was thought to be seen. People like what is proven or what is at least possible instead what is believed what is true that is not even at least possible. Regardless of how I feel about the entire Bible, with which you know how I feel about it, I still notice that if something or someone isn’t featured in anything that came before The New Testament material even started to be mentioned then there is no reason for me or anyone else to think that the person or the thing mentioned in The New Testament is in the earlier testament.

Think of it this way, there’s a group of stars in the sky that are supposed to represent the star sign Scorpio. Just look up into the sky at night and try to work out how anyone ever thought that a set of stars look like a scorpion. Anyone who thought that possibly was on drugs and anyone that now thinks that a group of stars look like a scorpion must be on drugs. Yes, this forum really is like that. No, I don’t think you are on drugs. Even here The Southern Cross here has an extra out of place star when I look at it at night, if I disregard that then it is a cross. See what is actually in your favourite book rather than just think that there are things within it that really aren’t there. By the way woke is a stupid term, you just meant that I am like someone who is politically correct. If you knew better then you’d know that I’m as politically incorrect as you can get, I cannot withstand the far left and I am nothing like them.

Jesus is a New Testament name that originated well after The Iron Age, it and currently used names similar to it originate from the Koine Greek name if every translation and transliteration is correct. Something which no one will ever be sure of. There also is the fact that any claim that it’s just about someone named Joshua (in English) or that of Y’shua/Yeshua/Yehoshua or anything similar to that is a false one. Jesus and names similar to that are very different and so if the story is true that the author came to the conclusion that the chosen one later referred to by Christians and those similar to that as Christ and other similar titles is supposed to be about the thought that it was about Y’shua and that of similar names to it then why wasn’t just Hebrew and Aramaic names just get used by those who used Greek ? If you don’t have a similar name in another language and writing then don’t make up a new name that isn’t similar to Iesous for example, if of course that is what the Koine Greek name really means. So I would rather see the word Christ in the Passover Lamb. Whether it’s any name or title for him after looking at the entire Bible I have to tell you that no he is not in the Passover Lamb.

Why do some that are not religious mistake every story being written by Bronze Age Goat Herders ? None of it is correct, instead there’s a fixation instead in any Bible with sheep, lamb and shepherds. Sheppard, the famous Brisbane, Queensland, Australia group are cool. They are known around the world. I wonder if one of them lives in my suburb.

Apokalupto: You haven't given any Biblical arguments backing up your opinions, all you've done is basically flat out deny the OP and used a metaphor or two to communicate your denial. I counted 0 evidence against the topic. The rest of what you said is off topic.

Apokalupto: As for the woke comment I made earlier, I wasn't saying that you are woke. Woke folk aren't awake, they're asleep, sticking their head in the sand as they deny reality around them. This is what you and DontNeedChrist do with Jesus and the Bible, stick your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge Biblical truths about Jesus and fall back on flat out, irrational denial.

GeraldtheGnome: You really don’t read things properly, instead you just guess what is true and imagine that things are in any religious material that just isn’t there. I love the bit about denial too, I denied nothing about the subject of this forum or that of anything else that I told you. The Bible in reality is just the interpretation of The Tanakh in the first section and then a guessed extension of that with The New Testament. Here is the thing my Mexican friend, you yourself have not given any arguments yourself backing up your own opinions. You see, accusations aren’t just a one way thing, you never thought about that. I really cannot deny what never was true in the first place. Use words, not letters or numbers if it the number is less than 10.. You have not shown any evidence to back up your own claims and therefore you have proved nothing, you have however accused me of having proof of nothing.

All you did was claim what you think is true. So long as what I told you, not ‘said’ to you, was slightly about the Jesus in the Passover Lamb myth of yours then that’s what matters, the same with what the Jew brings up too, who by the way you discredit the words of without even checking if he is right or wrong. If you read things properly as you used the stupid word woke, like a little kid still learning English uses, then you would have used the words political correctness instead. Not only would it have been right to use in your false accusation that I mentioned was where I acknowledged that you mentioned that you falsely accused me of being like them. They are unrealistic and have a far left agenda. Even the sticking the hand in the sand bit is silly. The reality is that there is nothing about Jesus or about Christ by any other name in the Passover Lamb. These are text messages, so no one has made a comment on here. The word is truth, not truths. There is far less in any Bible that is true than you think there is, that’s for sure.

Of course every single verse in any Bible of your choosing that you think is true that you think that myself and Mister Star of David has wrong should be presented by you since you think that it will make a difference to him and I. Let those and yourself work out what is true about what you present to us without any further religious bias and confirmation bias by you on display. Be realistic please.

Apokalupto: My Biblical evidence for my claims begin on page 1 which has been there for 3 years homie, it's been reposted on every new page. Open your eyes, scroll up on this page and find the 3rd post.

GeraldtheGnome: Show everyone single one. As for your 'evidence' well here goes what you have shown so far by what you told me. As for Homie, well there is also Homey, he has an unrealistic and militant way of thinking, he also has a chip on his shoulder.



Here's a preferred version of 'Revelation' by me.



We do not call Jesus anything, also the word is him, not Him. I know that in North America in particular there is a taught habit of using commas before the word or and so on, in reality though there is no need to do that. You can worship God in with any Bible of the Feudal Age onwards, it doesn't matter because that's when the then new name for the main Christian god came about. The word is his, not His. God simply is made up, no matter what name you give that god the god is still an imaginary one. The symbolism is silly, very silly. As I told you that you still don't understand, I asked you to show me which version of the verse, not just that of a vague reference to which verse it is. There also is a difference between God's eyes and that of Gods eyes. Gods is an error, the way it was used implies that it is about a god named Gods. Since you are still unwilling to show me your version of the verse or you just simply didn't understand it I will show the earliest known English version of the verse in question from The Tyndale New Testament of 1525, The Renaissance, of course in Early Modern English.

'The Book of Revelations, chapter 13, verse eight.

And all that dwell apon the erth worshipt him : whose names are not written in the boke of lyfe of the lambe which was kylled from the begynnynge of the world.'

What the hell did that mean ? It didn't make any sense, upon, Earth, worshipped, book, life, Lamb, killed and beginning easily replaces those words used in that verse for it to basically resemble anything that resembles Modern English. Where does your word foundation fit into any of it when you don't show the exact version of the verse that you still haven't shown ? It proved nothing and it didn't even show the possibility of Jesus in the Passover Lamb. Sure, I can use foundation where the words from the beginning is in the verse just as you did, either way it still doesn't make any sense. A hindsight belief written about near the end of The New Testament is not proof of any intention mentioned before The New Testament material even started. So you failed on that one. Don't use reposted, it is not a proper word. Open your eyes hypocrite. A claim cannot be proved by the claim after all.

Your Bible is anyway, including that of the Passover Lamb story can be easily disproved, it is impossible that any person was created from nothing as mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis only and also Humans were not created by spontaneous generation despite the claim otherwise in the second verse. That means that every person claimed to have originated from them never existed and that every living person who is supposed to have originated from any claimed created couple should not exist. Here we are though. That means that Christ is made up and that no one is in the Passoever Lamb. You sometimes use quotation marks when you do not need to and that of commas when you don't need to. There really also is no reason to have and at the start of a sentence either.

Your Isaiah 46:10 verse is indeed there, it is not evidence that proves anything about Jesus in the Passover Lamb. Verses in Genesis, chapter four is also not about Jesus in the Passover Lamb. Nothing that has been shown by you, not even in a symbolic sense, is about Jesus in the Passover Lamb. Moses did not exist, the story about a mass exodus from Egypt is made up. The only thing true about the Passover Lamb myth and the false claim that Jesus was in the Passover Lamb is that Lambs were sacrificed by people in the past. Your points that were supposed to claim things that proved your point did not prove your point. Apostasy is a word to best avoid, the myth really is about more than one made up god, the claimed son of a god means that there is more than one god in the story. No one was sacrificed and became the Lamb of any god by any name, not symbolically and not otherwise.

Just go for words rather than numbers. I once looked at the other verses that you had there. None of them were about Jesus in the Passover lamb in a symbolic way or in any other way. I do not use the internet use of the word post so I don't consider them to be posts as such. Just use standard words, reiteration and filibustering can be easily replaced by better suited words than that. Not once out of every version of every verse that you did and you also did not show there was there anything that proved that Jesus is in the Passover Lamb. No Jesus was sacrificed and no Jesus ever existed back then, that also means that in that way there was no Jesus in the Passover Lamb symbolically or in any other way. Was that the best you had ? Open your eyes ! You made errors with your last response and before that as well.

GeraldtheGnome: Oh and the editing after what I last put does not change a thing, you showed no evidence that can be used to prove what the title of this forum is about on any bit of this forum.

Apokalupto: Saying that no one was created is not biblical evidence against Jesus in the Passover Lamb, you're avoiding the topic.

Simply denying the verses and arguments I made is again proof of nothing but that you have an opinion and using flat out denial as your argument, you want how you *feel* about the topic to be reality, but it's not. So far you have 0 Biblical based evidence for your wild claims.

If you continue wandering off topic or post mocking videos it will be deleted. I'm not going to continue reading your long, incomprehensible, illogical and off topic flubber just to find out it has nothing to do with the topic again. And adding a few lines about the Passover Lamb isn't going to get you a green pass. You're cluttering the thread and wasting MY time and for anyone who is or wants to participate. Final warning. PS. I've been using the KJV, this was mentioned on pg 1.

GeraldTheGnumbnut: