I was thinking about the last supper being the tru..

Late night thought

9 w

I was thinking about the last supper being the true passover. The lamb doesnt seem to have been slaughtered at the temple. So was slaughtering passover at the temple and, specifically, not within our gates an addition by priests?

There is a possibility it wasnt a passover meal, bit that woul make Yeshua a liar.

Positions?

Comment

I haven't even given it much thought as I just assumed it was an instruction from Father, BUT...

I have looked at a number of other subjects from a "what is the original" perspective and have found that in many placed the Masoretic Text, Leningrad Lexicon and the Lexicon Vaticanus doesn't even all agree. It is truly a hit and miss in some instances as the writings will support one another in different combinations.

On this subject it looks like there are some divergence that I can find:

1. Leviticus 17:3-4 - refers to the Tent of Meeting, so is excluded; unless if we have Scripture that shows that the Temple is a 100% replacement for the Tent of Meeting.
2. Deuteronomy 12 - does not explicitly name the location where sacrifices must be offered, so is excluded
3. 2 Chronicles 7:12 - refers to the Temple of Solomon, so could be included if it is evidence for point 1

We therefore only have one passage to look at, 2 Chronicles 7...

1. All major textual traditions (MT, LXX, DSS) agree that sacrifices were restricted to the central sanctuary (only later on accepted as the Jerusalem Temple).

2. The Samaritan Pentateuch diverges by specifying Mount Gerizim as the chosen place in Deut 12 and Lev 17:3.

3. No substantive theological differences exist between the MT and LXX on this issue—only minor linguistic variations.

My thinking is, if there were any changes made then it would have to have taken place before the writing down of the MT or a purposeful attempt to change it. Like where `Adonai` is purposefully used to replace Father's name and then all old writings are destroyed on purpose. That would then cause the LXX to align with the rest of the text as the translators might not have been able to distinguish between additions/modifications and the original text.

So 🤯 I personally do believe that it could have been inserted into the thinking/beliefs .

This is just my opinion and I would like to hear what others understand on this as I would love to get an answer as well on this.

I haven't even given it much thought as I just assumed it was an instruction from Father, BUT... 
 
I have looked at a number of other subjects from a "what is the original" perspective and have found that in many placed the Masoretic Text, Leningrad Lexicon and the Lexicon Vaticanus doesn't even all agree.  It is truly a hit and miss in some instances as the writings will support one another in different combinations. 
 
On this subject it looks like there are some divergence that I can find: 
 
1. Leviticus 17:3-4 - refers to the Tent of Meeting, so is excluded; unless if we have Scripture that shows that the Temple is a 100% replacement for the Tent of Meeting. 
2. Deuteronomy 12 - does not explicitly name the location where sacrifices must be offered, so is excluded 
3. 2 Chronicles 7:12 - refers to the Temple of Solomon, so could be included if it is evidence for point 1 
 
We therefore only have one passage to look at, 2 Chronicles 7... 
 
1. All major textual traditions (MT, LXX, DSS) agree that sacrifices were restricted to the central sanctuary (only later on accepted as the Jerusalem Temple). 
 
2. The Samaritan Pentateuch diverges by specifying Mount Gerizim as the chosen place in Deut 12 and Lev 17:3. 
 
3. No substantive theological differences exist between the MT and LXX on this issue—only minor linguistic variations. 
 
My thinking is, if there were any changes made then it would have to have taken place before the writing down of the MT or a purposeful attempt to change it.  Like where `Adonai` is purposefully used to replace Father's name and then all old writings are destroyed on purpose.  That would then cause the LXX to align with the rest of the text as the translators might not have been able to distinguish between additions/modifications and the original text. 
 
So 🤯 I personally do believe that it could have been inserted into the thinking/beliefs . 
 
This is just my opinion and I would like to hear what others understand on this as I would love to get an answer as well on this.

· Reply · 1754636234

He said go and prepare so lart of that preparation would have been to go to the temple to pay for lamb. They would have then brough it back to the upper room.

· Reply · 1754672838

Thank you for pointing that detail out!

· Reply · 1754686767

Late night thought

Rhy Bezuidenhout

Josh Roe

GidgetsMom

Frankincense - Hojary Superior (Boswellia sacra)

Exodus, fine art print

Day One, fine art print

Garden of Emunah, fine art print

Eyes of Grace

Bookmark - Num 6:24-26