• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is according to Jews everything God's will?

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Leviticus 16, specifically verse 30.

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.
The atonement cleanses from all sins.

:)

It demonstrates forgiveness and the removal of sin. There's a difference between forgiveness and atonement.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
What did I misrepresent? I apologize if I did.
It's not you, it's the Christian websites on which you rely to make your points. I'm not saying every single Christian argument misrepresents Jewish Scriptures, but many arguments are juvenile, ill-thought out and just plain bad. However, the longer, better ones are not generally employed on such places as RF and unfortunately generally not by Christians on RF in debate. They're very long and need to take into account things like culture, wordplay, knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek etc. The Church Fathers often went to the Jewish scholars to educate them on the Scripture, the language, the culture etc.

Unfortunately, this happens rarely on RF.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
1 John 2:2 says
Thank you, so that's another difference between Jesus and animal sacrifices. Jesus atones for everything while animal sacrifices atone only for accidental sins.

Are you sure you want to keep comparing the two?
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Thank you, so that's another difference between Jesus and animal sacrifices. Jesus atones for everything while animal sacrifices atone only for accidental sins.

Are you sure you want to keep comparing the two?

That supports that the animal sacrifices were foreshadowing of Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of the world.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
It's the meaning of the Hebrew word for atonement in the Old Testament. Contradictions: Did Animal Sacrifices Remove Sin?
I find it difficult to discuss this idea with you as you are unfamiliar with the Hebrew root at play here. You say that the word k-ph-r is the word for atonement, but that atonement is different from "removal" as if there is some alternate concept in the bible of "removal of sin" which isn't accomplished by "only" atoning. Part of this might come from your idea of original sin which is a stain on humankind which cannot be removed. Jews simply don't see sin that way, so we don't see "atonement" as deficient in any way. You are starting with an idea that what is in the text doesn't match up to what is in your text. We reject your text and see the language in the original. K-ph-r is a root that means a variety of things including "to cover with pitch" because the noun for "pitch" is built on the same k-ph-r letters, though they are not of the same root.

Separate from that, the root relates to expiating and obliterating (as explained in Klein's Etymological Dictionary):

"Some scholars connect כפר ᴵ with Akka. kapāru, kuppuru (= to wipe off; to expiate), Aram.-Syr. כְּפַר (= he washed away, wiped off). However, as shown by the Aram. verbs כְּפַר and כַּפֵּר, the meanings ‘to wash away, wipe off, cover, expiate’, are interrelated, and, accordingly, all the above words are etymologically connected. For sense development cp. Arab. ghafara (= he covered, he forgave), ‘afa (= he covered, he wiped out, he forgave)."

So relying on "atone" as if that stands by itself as an incomplete removal is ignoring the actual meaning and use of the Hebrew word and attaching baggage to the English word that translators have chosen to use.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
another note -- you might want to look up Lev 4:20 for an explicit statement that has a different word in relation to sacrifices. Of course, this same verb for forgiveness is used by God when there is no sacrifice at all in Num 14:20. So maybe the proof is that no sacrifice is required for forgiveness.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
I find it difficult to discuss this idea with you as you are unfamiliar with the Hebrew root at play here. You say that the word k-ph-r is the word for atonement, but that atonement is different from "removal" as if there is some alternate concept in the bible of "removal of sin" which isn't accomplished by "only" atoning. Part of this might come from your idea of original sin which is a stain on humankind which cannot be removed. Jews simply don't see sin that way, so we don't see "atonement" as deficient in any way. You are starting with an idea that what is in the text doesn't match up to what is in your text. We reject your text and see the language in the original. K-ph-r is a root that means a variety of things including "to cover with pitch" because the noun for "pitch" is built on the same k-ph-r letters, though they are not of the same root.

Separate from that, the root relates to expiating and obliterating (as explained in Klein's Etymological Dictionary):

"Some scholars connect כפר ᴵ with Akka. kapāru, kuppuru (= to wipe off; to expiate), Aram.-Syr. כְּפַר (= he washed away, wiped off). However, as shown by the Aram. verbs כְּפַר and כַּפֵּר, the meanings ‘to wash away, wipe off, cover, expiate’, are interrelated, and, accordingly, all the above words are etymologically connected. For sense development cp. Arab. ghafara (= he covered, he forgave), ‘afa (= he covered, he wiped out, he forgave)."

So relying on "atone" as if that stands by itself as an incomplete removal is ignoring the actual meaning and use of the Hebrew word and attaching baggage to the English word that translators have chosen to use.

Even unbelievers believe that original sin is mentioned in the Old Testament. Why Didn't God Leave Huge Quantities of Secular Evidence For Jesus?

Jesus was a savior deity. In Judaism they came up with the concept of original sin and ideas that one cannot get into an afterlife with too much "sin-force". So Jesus gets you into a heaven by erasing sins. All saviors get you into an afterlife by some process. Jesus is the Jewish version of the myth.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
another note -- you might want to look up Lev 4:20 for an explicit statement that has a different word in relation to sacrifices. Of course, this same verb for forgiveness is used by God when there is no sacrifice at all in Num 14:20. So maybe the proof is that no sacrifice is required for forgiveness.

That shows that the Old Testament sacrifices foreshadowed the coming Messiah. Why did God require animal sacrifices in the Old Testament? | GotQuestions.org

Question: "Why did God require animal sacrifices in the Old Testament?"

Answer:
God required animal sacrifices to provide a temporary covering of sins and to foreshadow the perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Leviticus 4:35, 5:10). Animal sacrifice is an important theme found throughout Scripture because “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22). When Adam and Eve sinned, animals were killed by God to provide clothing for them (Genesis 3:21). Cain and Abel brought sacrifices to the Lord. Cain’s was unacceptable because he brought fruit, while Abel’s was acceptable because it was the “firstborn of his flock” (Genesis 4:4-5). After the flood receded, Noah sacrificed animals to God (Genesis 8:20-21).
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Even unbelievers believe that original sin is mentioned in the Old Testament. Why Didn't God Leave Huge Quantities of Secular Evidence For Jesus?
Good thing I'm not an unbeliever. I just believe in something different. But why do you get your ideas of Judaism from unattributed statements by some guy named "joelr" who doesn't say he is Jewish or have any special insight in to Judaism. His statement is a clear misunderstanding of Jewish theology and you are buying into it.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Good thing I'm not an unbeliever. I just believe in something different. But why do you get your ideas of Judaism from unattributed statements by some guy named "joelr" who doesn't say he is Jewish or have any special insight in to Judaism. His statement is a clear misunderstanding of Jewish theology and you are buying into it.

He read the Old Testament and came to the conclusion that original sin is taught there. He isn't a believer in Christ, and thus it is highly unlikely that he could be a biased source about Judaism.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
No, it shows that when you hang your hat on the use of k-ph-r you are intentionally ignoring s-l-ch.

I believe that types and shadows existed in the Old Testament, because when you read the Bible over and over again you notice things that you didn't notice before.
 
Top