There were a number of objections against the Passover and Yeshua being that that have been raised to me recently, which I want to look at, here they are:
"1. The passover killing of the sheep in Egypt was an afront to the Egyptians, who worshipped sheep, and in the month of their "aries" sheep deity, in middle of the moth in plain sight.
2. There were hundreds of thousands of sheep which the Israelites killed in Egypt, as opposed to one lamb.
3. Passover lambs had nothing to do w/ atonement.
4. Passover lambs were roasted and eaten by the people of Israel, along w/ the other elements of the "seder", in celebration of the exit from egypt, with great signs and wonders, and gentiles are not allowed to partake of it. The Xtian attempts to force Jsus into the "passover" lambs narrative is an obvious failure that cannot be simply, passed over"
Regarding as to why Jesus is described as the Passover lamb in the NT is quite simple, Even though the Exodus story doesn't mention repentance, that isn't what Paul is conveying when he alludes to the Passover. His whole point is that just as the blood was used to cover the doorpost and cause the angel of death to Passover the Israelites, so the blood of Christ which we are washed in, causes God's wrath to Passover us. Paul does mention putting away the old leaven (evil and sin), but his point, again, the blood on the door post and the blood of Jesus acting as a protective covering from God's wrath.
There is no question that the Passover isn't connected to repentance, but that isn't part of the point that Paul himself is making.
Another point raised to me was the subject of John the Baptist, which is this:
"another bizzarre statement that Torah observant Jews just would not make concerning another Jew, "the lamb of G-d, that takes away the sins of the world". First of all, what does the phrase even mean, "the lamb of G-d"?! Since when do Jews call each other "lamb of G-d". This sounds like something out of the Egyptian cults, who believed in their "lamb of G-d" deities. Very strange, and on top of that, "that takes away the sins of the world?", when Torah makes no such teachings?!"
It's not the NT or Christians claim that Jews called each other the lamb of God. The statement was a one time statement given about Jesus being our atonement and offering, considering lambs were offered at the temple and Yeshua came to be our ultimate atonement. John the Baptist was not speaking of the same lamb that Paul was speaking of. Typology is utilized by the NT constantly and the substance that was being pointed to does differ in a few ways to the shadow. There are more points I make on others in another article but I think that's it for the time being in this one: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/christological-typology-in-old-testament.html.
When John the Baptist was uttering the phrase the lamb of God, he obviously didn't have Egyptian theology in mind or something from that. He was not making a connection to the following statement:
"Exodus 12:12, ""On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn of both people and animals, and I will bring judgment ***on all the gods of Egypt***. I am the LORD."
So which deities of egypt were dealt with when the G-d of Israel took us out egypt?
1. The first plague was where G-d turned the Nile river to blood. The Nile river was considered holy – Hapi
2. Frogs and toads were worshipped by the Egyptians and were sacred -Heka
3. The third plague was an attack on the Egyptian god Geb.
4. The fourth was against Khepfi, scarab, who was the “god” of insects (this was the plague of flies).
5. The fifth was against livestock and Apis, who was the bull “god.”
6. The sixth was boils and was for the god Thoth (Imhotep), who the “god” of medicine and healing
7. The seventh was hail and was against the goddess Nut, who was the sky “goddess" (hail fell from the sky and destroyed crops)
8. The eigth was locusts and destroyed the crops of the field that had been left after the hail. This targeted the god Anubis, who was the “god” of the fields.
9. The ninth was darkness which blotted out Ra or Amon-Re, the sun “god.”
10. The tenth was the plague of the killing of the first born. This was an attack on Pharaoh, who was supposedly god in the flesh (where have we heard THAT before?) as well as through the blood of the paschal lamb which was an afront to the ram / lamb god of Aries."
For the life of me, anyone reading the NT be they Jew or Gentile, how in the world could they conclude that somehow John the Baptist was making a connection between Jesus and the lamb of Egypt? John wouldn't make a conclusion like this, as a Jew idolatry would be an abomination to him.
"In essence, the 10 plagues were signs to the Egyptian superpower of the time that their deities were NOTHING, false gods, and our G-d purposely made us openly display this truth with the purposeful slaughtering and feasting around thousands of sheep being killed. In short, open display against the sheep god of the egyptians, in their month of "aries", on 15th of month, in plain view. What a huge slap in the face! Ironically, the church later ends up worshipping "the lamb of god", in their re-interpretation of their version of passover..."
Interesting point, however, the church worshipping Yeshua or Jesus again, has no connection to the lamb/ram of Egypt and certainly Jesus did not have this idea in his head much like John the Baptist.
There were other cases where Jesus is referred to as a lamb which was raised to me by another Jew, such as in Acts 8:32 and in 1 Peter 3:19. With respect to the point in Peter, I am aware that unblemished lamb in the Torah refers to blind lambs or crippled or any defect. This is a point I also address in my response to Eli Cohen:
"Leviticus 4:28 and the sin they have committed becomes known, they must bring as their offering for the sin they committed a female goat without defect.
Cohen rightly points out that a female goat doesn't mean the goat is sinless, but rather defects that the interviewer alludes to. I already know this, a defect in the lamb to me would of been something wrong with it's eyes, legs or any part of his body that is broken, bruised, or battered. I am already aware of this as are other informed Christians. He also goes onto say it doesn't have to be a rightous animal, just a wholesome animal. However, what Cohen doesn't realise is that the lamb is a picture or an antitype of Jesus being our vicarious atonement. Lord Willing I may do an article speaking on the typology of the New Testament in the future." (http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-rabbi-eli-cohen-on-blood.html)
Peter is making the point that due to Christ's sinlessness, his atonement satisfied the wrath of God. He is using the blemish of the lambs to illustrate his point
Hope this article helps.