Fundamentalist Christians and preachers often loudly trumpet to the world that the Bible is the authoritative word of God and that their savior/human sacrifice called Jesus was a historical person. They further proclaim that the New Testament describes exactly what Jesus was and accurately portrays the events of his life and purpose on earth. In essence, if something about the Biblical character called Jesus appears in the New Testament, then it's a universal fact that cannot be questioned.

The assertions made by these zealous believers are loaded with the type of hype often found in commercial advertising, including claims that Jesus perfectly fulfilled the law of God, that Jesus was the "Lamb of God", and that Jesus was the perfect sacrifice for sin. They'll quote various New Testament verses and then declare this is compelling evidence that Jesus was the official "Lamb of God" and that the New Testament is 100% accurate and valid in every detail.

Based on assertions like these, it appears that the doctrinal desires of believers will always trump any scriptural evidence to the contrary. In other words, if Christians want to promote and advertise Jesus as a valid sin sacrifice, then it doesn't really matter what the actual text (also known as the law of God) says about sin sacrifices. They'll believe as their faith requires, recognizing the parts of the Bible that suit their needs while ignoring those parts that don't support the impression they want to create. Compelling evidence for their assertions is entirely subjective and selective. It represents their personal theological whims and hopes rather than representing some sort of universal, absolute truth from the Biblical tribal deity commonly called "God".

Christians will often claim that pagan religions copied Christianity and borrowed New Testament concepts in order to validate their doctrines and beliefs. Christianity of course, would never do such a thing and everything in the New Testament is accurate and untainted history. The Christian claim that pagans borrowed from Christianity but Christians never borrowed concepts from pagans is a self-serving and deceptive illusion, designed to keep Christianity spotless, pure, and unique.

Lost in all the rhetoric and hoopla from Christian apologists, about Christianity being a pure conduit of information directly from "God", is the fact that Christianity borrowed the concept of sacrifice from the Old Testament, manufactured their own rules for the meaning and procedure of sacrifice, and then applied this new doctrine to their human sacrifice cult icon called "Jesus". It's profoundly ironic that Christian apologists will go to great lengths to assert that Christianity never borrowed any "pagan" ideas when Christianity itself hijacked the Old Testament concepts, twisted them into a new theological pretzel, and then told the world that only Christianity represents the true word of God. That such an opportunistic and self serving ideology has been foisted on much of the world is testimony to the power of aggressive, control seeking, and fear based religions.

However, the New Testament provides poor evidence for the accuracy and authority of its claims if the entire Bible is to be taken seriously as the word of God. Concepts borrowed from outside the Bible God's word are evidenced in the New Testament. The human sacrifice called "Jesus" by the New Testament writers, introduced a new blood drinking ritual for salvation that is abomination in the eyes of "God the Father", the deity of the Old Testament.

John 6:53-55
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

The consumption of blood, in any form, is abomination to God.

Lev 3:17
It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.

Lev 17:10
And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

If the Old Testament is to be taken seriously as the word of God, then this pagan like blood drinking ritual certainly didn't come from the Bible God. This New Testament teaching by Jesus mocks God's law rather than obeying it and fulfilling it.

The common Christian apologetic for this issue, that it was really wine (symbolic blood) and not real blood, is an attempt to rationalize a sin into a bona fide doctrine. Jesus declared that symbolic sin was still sin (Matt 5:28) and the idea that God would find it acceptable for people to drink wine, pretending it was blood, makes a hypocrite out of God.

Sin isn't supposed to be based on relative morality or based on subjective situations. God's laws are supposed to represent universal moral absolutes and Christians constantly advertise them as such. Keep in mind, God wants people to take his law seriously and it was the Bible God who ordered a man put to death for violating the law by picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Num 15:32-36).

Fundamentalist Christian theologians attempt to advance the idea that God will ignore an abomination such as blood drinking or that he changed his mind about it and decided to endorse and recommend what he previously defined as a sin. These types of apologetic antics are a sure sign that a believer is writing their own text according to their own whims, and is not very interested in what the Old Testament says.

Further signs of embellishment and creative manipulation in the New Testament can be found in the claim that Jesus was the "Lamb of God", specifically a Passover lamb, whose sacrifice took away the sins of the world.

John 1:29
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

1 John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 Cor 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:

There are several problems with these claims if the word of God in the Old Testament is to be taken seriously. To start with, the Passover "lamb" is not a singular animal that is sacrificed for the community. Each household is to provide it's own lamb (or goat) and the lamb is to be roasted and eaten (Exo 12:3-10).

More importantly, the Passover lambs are commemorative sacrifices and not sin sacrifices. There is no atonement for sin provided in a Passover sacrifice, as it celebrates an event. Claiming that someone is a Passover lamb sacrifice isn't accurate nor would it atone for the sins of anyone, even if humans were valid sacrifices (which they aren't). [*As an aside, Moses tried to pay for the sins of the people himself and God refused to consider such a solution.

Exo 32:31-33
And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold.
Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.
And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.

Naturally, Christians will claim that Jesus is an exception to the precedent already set by God in denying a third party having the sins of others placed on him. The Christian need for doctrinal expediency will always trump actual scriptural precedent from the Old Testament.*]

In order to serve a theological desire and agenda, the author of the Gospel of John attempts to portray Jesus as a Passover lamb and contradicts the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, and Luke in the process. The author of John claims that Jesus was killed on the day prior to the Passover meal, which is when a Passover lamb would be killed.

John 19:14-16
And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.

Further confirmation in the Gospel of John , that Jesus was killed prior to the Passover meal, can be found in John 18:28 (and also in John 13:1). According to the author of John, Jesus had been arrested prior to the Passover meal.

John 18:28
Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

The Gospel of Mark tells a different story, and shows Jesus eating the Passover meal with his disciples.

Mark 14:12-18
And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?
And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him.
And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?
And he will shew you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us.
And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.
And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.

As the scripture indicates, Jesus was not arrested or killed prior to the Passover meal as a Passover lamb would be, but was very much alive and ate the meal with his disciples. This is also confirmed by Matthew 26:17-21 and Luke 22:7-15. In the Luke gospel, Jesus specifically states that he wants to eat the Passover meal.

Luke 22:15
And he (Jesus) said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus ate the Passover meal and was then arrested and killed. According to John, Jesus was arrested and killed prior to the Passover meal, as a Passover lamb would be. The author of John wanted to portray Jesus as a Passover lamb, as such a portrayal suited his theological whims. Perhaps the audience he was writing for would find a spring lamb sacrifice more appealing. There is no way to confirm which version of the story is correct. Just a thought--perhaps neither are accurate and represent the evolution of a legend where various details are added over time.

For that matter, at what time of day was Jesus crucified? The author of John portrays Jesus as being killed sometime after the sixth hour (12 P.M.).

John 19:14-16
And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.

The author of Mark states that Jesus was crucified at the third hour (9 A.M.).

Mark 15:25
And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

Clearly, there are different versions of the story. This is the type of "historical accuracy" to be found in the alleged inspired word of God.

Another problem found with Christian claims concerning the sacrifice of Jesus involves the nature of a sin sacrifice. There are different sin atonement rituals for various types of sin and Jesus fulfills none of them.

Did the sacrifice of Jesus comply with God's holy law regarding a sin sacrifice where an animal is killed? Jesus stated that he came to fulfill, or make full the law of God (Matt 5:17-20). If this is true, then the sacrifice of Jesus must conform with the law of God, which he was living under as a Jew.

According to the law of God (Lev 4), a valid sin sacrifice contains the following elements.

* The animal must be a designated animal type, approved of for sacrifice by Yahweh.
* The animal must be physically unblemished.
* The sacrifice must be ritualized by a Levitical priest.
* The sacrifice is to die of blood loss.
* The sacrifice occurs at the officially designated place, the Tent of Meeting/Temple.
* The blood is poured out/sprinkled on the altar.

The human sacrifice of Jesus did not comply with any of these regulations and Jesus scores a perfect 0 out of 6 concerning these listed requirements.

Particularly noteworthy is that Jesus was allegedly scourged and beaten (Matt 27:26-30).
Being physically injured is reason alone for disqualification as a sacrifice in the sin atonement ritual.

Lev 22:20,24
But whatsoever hath a blemish, that shall ye not offer: for it shall not be acceptable for you.
Ye shall not offer unto the LORD that which is bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut; neither shall ye make any offering thereof in your land.

No Levitical priest would have considered Jesus a valid sacrifice after he had be scourged and beaten. The New Testament also claims that every human being is cursed by the taint of inherited sin from Adam.

Rom 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

If Jesus is the sin sacrifice for the entire community, then he might be better portrayed as serving the function of the scapegoat involved in the ritual known as the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:5-34). The scapeGOAT (not a lamb!) was the animal upon whose head the sins of the community were placed. The scapegoat was not killed but was released in an uninhabited place.

Lev 16:21-22,30,34
And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.
For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.
And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses.

As the scripture states, the scapegoat involved in the ritual known as the Day of Atonement carried the sins of the community on its head but wasn't killed. Since Jesus was not a goat and was killed, he doesn't remotely fit this form of sin "sacrifice" either. This is probably just as well because it wouldn't sound nearly as fluffy and righteous for Christians to declare that Jesus was the Goat of God, especially when goats were implied to represent sinners (Matt 25:31-33).

As is often the case with cults, calculated promotion and advertising are extensively used to create and reinforce certain perceptions and images, which in turn elevate the cult above other competing beliefs. It certainly doesn't sound holy to declare: "Behold the Goat of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

In any event, the New Testament attempt to equate Jesus with a Passover lamb (which in reality wasn't a singular animal nor even a sin sacrifice), makes a shambles of God's law as specified in the Old Testament. Ironically, the New Testament character who most closely matches the scapegoat is the criminal Barabbas, who was released into the world after being locked up in prison (Matt 27:15-26).

The author of the Book of Hebrews also gets into the act and contributes to the New Testament distortions of the Old Testament by declaring that the sin sacrifice of Jesus not only provides remission for past sins, but preemptively atones for sins yet to be committed in the future.

Heb 10:10,12,18
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

This is truly a one size fits all savior! Too bad none of it conforms with God's law. It's more creative doctrine manufacturing, which tries to wear a mask of endorsement, by basing itself loosely on the Old Testament. In reality, it writes a new script and recipe for salvation in order to elevate, advertise, and promote the new cult savior called Jesus.

Where does the Torah say that a sin sacrifice could atone for sins that were committed at some future time? According to God's law a sin sacrifice does not atone for sins that have yet to be committed. For example, God instructs that the Day of Atonement sin ritual be observed throughout all generations and is to be conducted every year.

Lev 16:34
And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses.

If sin could be preemptively atoned for, then this ritual would only have to be performed once and not each year as God clearly instructs. The sin rituals in Lev 4 are also for the remission of past sins and do not atone for future sins.

Also contrary to the claim made by the author of Hebrews, the Old Testament states that in the messianic era, when the third Temple is built, sin sacrifices will not have been done away but will still occur (Ezek 43:21-27). Another claim made by the author of Hebrews was that the Levitical priesthood was ended by Jesus (Heb 7:11-28). This is another false claim on the part of a New Testament writer.

According to God's word from the Old Testament, the priesthood was promised exclusively to the Levites, the descendants of Aaron (Exo 29:4-9). In the messianic era, the Levites would occupy the priesthood, not Jesus.

Jer 33:18
Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.

Once again, the Old Testament is ignored if it conflicts with the theological agenda of a Christian writer.

Christians will often attempt to rationalize the failure of Jesus to comply with the law by claiming that Jesus ushered in the new covenant. They also often claim that God did away with his "old" laws and that faith in Jesus as a sin sacrifice is now the new system that God put in place. This rationalization is blatantly dishonest as it attempts to rewrite the definition of the new covenant.

The definition of the new covenant is found in Jer 31:27-37, and that text says absolutely nothing about God's laws being ended or replaced by a new system which requires faith in a human "sin" sacrifice. The new covenant, as defined by Jer 31:17-37, is where God's laws will be reaffirmed under a new contract. If Christians want to claim that God's laws were to be replaced by faith in a human sacrifice, they can validate the claim by finding the verses in Jer 31 which say that. They'll be looking a long time, for there are no verses in Jer 31:27-37 to support such a claim.

In retrospect, the New Testament creation of Jesus as the "Lamb of God" and a perfect sacrifice for the sins of all humanity relies on embellishments that are not supported by the scripture of the Old Testament. Embellished stories tend to become more complex and more detailed as time goes on, and the evolution of Jesus is no exception. Christianity grafted itself onto the Hebrew scriptures and proceeded to construct a new religion.

The Christian attempt to mold Jesus into a one size fits all savior requires a rank dismissal of and disregard for the laws given by God. The law of God is declared perfect in Psa 19:7. The law of God is declared everlasting in Psa 119:152,160 and Psa 111:7-8.

God gave clear instructions for his followers not to tamper with his law by attempting to add qualifiers or by taking away parts that don't suit their whims.

Deut 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Yet, the desires of Christians to have for themselves a cult icon called "Jesus" as a perfect sacrifice for their sins is more important than doing the hard work of reading and obeying God's laws. The core Christian doctrine, which proclaims that Jesus was God's officially approved sin sacrifice for the world, is a manufactured, pious fraud if the Old Testament is to be taken seriously as the word of God.