Blood is not necessary for atonement

[Brickjectivity]

Good examples you brought up in that post.

The Christian scriptures make the claim that "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins." Hebrews 9:22 This is a great part of their reasoning for the necessity of Jesus as the sacrifice for all sins.

The problem is, this assumption is quite mistaken so far as the Tanakh (what Christians mistakenly call the "old" testament) is concerned. Let's look at what the Tanakh has to say.

Actually that argument is only made in Hebrews, and it does not imply 'All' sins. There is a translation problem here, because the various classes of errors which get separate terminology and treatment in your Torah all get rendered 'Sin' in the Greek. Its a 3 to 1 translation problem or such. Even though that happens the author clearly is referring (by saying 'Sin') only to those kinds of errors which require sacrifice. While you are correct on a technicality due to translation limitations, this actually is not what the author of Hebrews intends to argue. Therefore its not what the Christian scriptures say. Not really, but if it did there would indeed be a blatant flaw. I agree with you on that.

1. From the TORAH: Although commandments are given to make blood sacrifices for various reasons, it is never stated that ONLY blood offerings atone for sins. The closest the Torah comes is when it states that the life is in the blood and that this is why God gave it to us to make atonement for. Sure. But it never says that God didn't give us other means of atonement.

True, nor Christians either. Many today will object otherwise, but we're talking about Christian scriptures rather than popular superstitions of which there are many.

There several instances in Christian scripture in which forgiveness occurs without any sacrifice, and though some (not you) may try to obscure this with some time travel nonsense it is nevertheless the case.

• Mark 2:4 and Luke 5:19 -- the incident of the man lowered through the hole in a roof. His sins are forgiven by 'The Son of Man', and no blood is shed.
• James 5:14-15 A person is anointed with oil, and the faithful elders of the church pray for them. The person is forgiven through anointing and the prayer. The passage says nothing about blood and only about oil and prayer.
• Colossians 1:27 It is revealed that Christ is in the people.
• Philemon 1:18 If Onesimus has done any wrong, Paul asks that it be charged to himself. In other words the people can forgive Onesimus or not, and Paul pleads with them to do so.

This might feel weird coming from me, since sometimes its Christians who argue that, no, forgiveness has to come through blood only and that Jews are shortsighted or wrong about it. I think its not the Christian scriptures which can faulted for that although they are involved. Obviously you are entitled to defend your faith and to also try to be of service to Christians who have produced fabulous arguments. I'm not opposed to your points and just am pointing out for other people that its actually not really the scriptures saying the things that you have objected to.

 

[whirlingmerc]

A good discussion is at Is the Shedding of Blood Necessary for Forgiveness? - Christian Research Institute

Blood was not optional at the original Passover for starters.

Leviticus 17:11 King James Version (KJV)
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 maketh an atonement for the soul.

 

[Sand Dancer]

The Christian scriptures make the claim that "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins." Hebrews 9:22 This is a great part of their reasoning for the necessity of Jesus as the sacrifice for all sins.

The problem is, this assumption is quite mistaken so far as the Tanakh (what Christians mistakenly call the "old" testament) is concerned. Let's look at what the Tanakh has to say.

1. From the TORAH: Although commandments are given to make blood sacrifices for various reasons, it is never stated that ONLY blood offerings atone for sins. The closest the Torah comes is when it states that the life is in the blood and that this is why God gave it to us to make atonement for. Sure. But it never says that God didn't give us other means of atonement.

2. From the TORAH: We have a recorded instance of Aaron making an atonement for the sin of Israel with incense rather than blood. The situation was as follows: Korah and his followers had grown jealous of Aaron as being the High Priest. They wanted a piece of the pie, and so they offered unlawful incense offering to God, which made God really really angry with their disobedience. God ended up killing some 250 of them. Well the Israelites grumbled about it, so God sent a plague upon the grumblers. Aaron needed to make a sacrfice to atone for their sin. Was it a blood sacrifice? No. It was an INCENSE offering. Numbers 17:11 (or 16:46 in Christian Bibles) And Moses said unto Aaron: 'Take thy fire-pan, and put fire therein from off the altar, and lay incense thereon, and carry it quickly unto the congregation, and make atonement for them; for there is wrath gone out from the LORD: the plague is begun.'

3. From the PROPHETS: Hosea deals with the times there will be no temple. How will ANY sacrifices be made if there is no temple? Hosea 9:22 "The words of our lips [prayers] shall be as bullocks [sacrifices]."

4. From the WRITINGS: Even though sacrifice is clearly commanded, it obviously does not derail the divine purpose on its highest levels if no sacrifice is made, according to the Psalms. It is t'shuva, repentance, that atones for sins, a "broken and contrite heart and spirit." Psalm 40:7 (6 in Christian Bibles) Sacrifice and meal-offering Thou hast no delight in; mine ears hast Thou opened; burnt-offering and sin-offering hast Thou not required. Psalm 51:18-19 (16-17 in Christian Bibles) For Thou delightest not in sacrifice, else would I give it; Thou hast no pleasure in burnt-offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise.

5. From the PROPHETS: Nathan confronted King David over his idolatry. II Samuel 12:13 "And David said unto Nathan: 'I have sinned against the LORD.' And Nathan said unto David: 'The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.' " When David confessed/repented, did Samuel say, "Quick! Go to the temple and make a blood sacrifice!"???? No. He said David's sin was forgiven. Already. Before any sacrifice was made at all. This is the voice of God's prophet. No where in the Tanakh is it made more clear -- it is REPENTANCE that on the highest level makes atonement for our sins.


So why were we ever given the instructions to make a sanctuary and offer up sacrifices? Because God knew that this manner of doing things is for our own benefit. It simply works better in our own minds and hearts. Just as having a temple reminds us of the presence of Hashem, a sacrifice reminds us of our commitment to t'shuva, repentance. It takes the intangible, and gives it form and substance, which is simply easier for human beings to understand as real. But understanding as real, and actually BEING real are two different things. It simply doesn't take a sacrifice to make t'shuva real.

Someday the Temple will be rebuilt. Sacrifices will resume. This will be a wonderful thing. The spiritual will flow from the core outward, as it was meant to. But in the meantime, we are doing just fine.

This is why Judaism makes more sense than Christianity does.

 

[Wandering Monk]

This is why Judaism makes more sense than Christianity does.

There is less equivocation for sure.

 

[whirlingmerc]

This is why Judaism makes more sense than Christianity does.

God chose to use sacrifices that largely used blood for most of the sacrifices and most significantly at the Day of Atonement and the system of sacrifice in the temple involving blood was not optional

In Psalm 50 of course God does require some sacrifice "He summons the heavens above, 5 'Gather to me this consecrated people, with me by sacrifice.' "

 

[Wandering Monk]

God chose to use sacrifices that largely used blood for most of the sacrifices and most significantly at the Day of Atonement

All primitive gods demanded blood.

 

[Terry Sampson]

This is why Judaism makes more sense than Christianity does.

Which explains why you're a Jew. Oh wait, ... you aren't, are you?

 

[Thief]

"Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins." Hebrews 9:22

how about?.....when you lose YOUR blood
(all of your body)

yo can sin no more

 

[Terry Sampson]

how about?.....when you lose YOUR blood (all of your body) you can sin no more

Yikes! Granted, your conclusion follows from your premise but, IMO, your argument seems to be missing something.
How about this: If, when the Angel of Death passes your house tonight, there is no lamb's blood on the three lintels of your front door, somebody in your family is going to die.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Yikes! Granted, your conclusion follows from your premise but, IMO, your argument seems to be missing something.
How about this: If, when the Angel of Death passes your house tonight, there is no lamb's blood on the three lintels of your front door, somebody in your family is going to die.

The animal sacrifice of Abel, a blood sacrifice seems to be the first in a long line of sacrifices leading up to Jesus (who's blood speaks better than the blood of Abel)

 

[Wandering Monk]

Yikes! Granted, your conclusion follows from your premise but, IMO, your argument seems to be missing something.
How about this: If, when the Angel of Death passes your house tonight, there is no lamb's blood on the three lintels of your front door, somebody in your family is going to die.

'Cause God is like that, ya know.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Yikes! Granted, your conclusion follows from your premise but, IMO, your argument seems to be missing something.
How about this: If, when the Angel of Death passes your house tonight, there is no lamb's blood on the three lintels of your front door, somebody in your family is going to die.

The Pesach is not a sin offering.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Read the book of Hebrews. This perspective is derived mostly from that book.

As far as sensible, the view of the book of Hebrews is the more sensible

God required blood being splashed against the alter as said through Moses and blood brought to the mercy seat of the ark in the holy of Holies every Yon Kippur

and yet Isaiah says destine this requirement in Isaiah 1:11 that is not ultimately God;s desires (but was a requirement)

Makes more sense that 'the ultimate sacrifice' would be for the Messiah to offer his blood once for all as the 'lamb who takes away the sins of the world' fulfilling the required.

 

[whirlingmerc]

The Pesach is not a sin offering.

it has remarkable similarities to many other sacrifices of Moses

 

[whirlingmerc]

'Cause God is like that, ya know.

Interestingly 'the year monster' the dragon of the Chinese new year has remarkable similarities to the Passover account. It comes from the sky to eat the firstborn but repelled by the red markings on the doors and passes by the houses with red on the sides of the doors

I think likely that God allowed the Chinese culture to have that legend and echo of the Passover in some respects as part of preparing the world for the real deal in the atonement of Jesus.

Red seems linked with blood

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Nice hand waive without addressing the scripture content in the post that disagrees with you and why make an OP if your not willing to be challenged and discuss your claims? Nuff said

3rd Angel. The whole purpose of my post was to engage in dialogue over this with Christians. But not every Christian. Please try not to take this as a slam. It is not meant that way. Every person is different. You seem to be a very lovely person. This is simply an explanation for why my replies to you are so rare and so short.

In some cases, the Christian is able to hear and understand and even appreciate the opposing viewpoint of the interlocutor, even if they ultimately reject that viewpoint. That is the sort of Christian with which I seek to engage.

Then there are some Christians who are not able to even hear the opposing viewpoint, much less have an appreciation for it. For them, reading a post has but one purpose, and that is looking for opportunities to post their rebuttals. If they could get away with posting their views without reading the opposing posts, they would (and some of them do this).

I have found that you exist in this latter category, that you cannot entertain ideas outside of your own views. Your sole purpose for being in this forum is to push your own agenda. There is no discourse. The use of the reply button is a mere tool for you to state your own ideas.

That makes it of no value for me to waste my time replying to you. Thus, if I do, on rare occasion, it is usually for something rather obvious, a very short reply, and solely for the sake of other readers.

It's really a shame, because I actually do find your choice of topics very interesting.

 

[Terry Sampson]

The Christian scriptures make the claim that "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins."
The problem is, this assumption is quite mistaken so far as the Tanakh ... is concerned.

Hmmm, ... that would be the pre-Sinai Tanakh that you're referring to, no? If not, you're comparing apples and pigs.
You and I did not stand at Sinai when the Torah was given to Israel. But your fathers did and their merit is imputed to their children, and to you. Consequently, all Jews are born without original sin. Some sages said that that mercy is granted to converts, for whom their guardian angels also stood at Sinai when the Torah was given. Lucky you. I'm a Gentile and not a convert. Who stood at Sinai for me? Looks like I'm stuck with original sin, eh?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Read the book of Hebrews. This perspective is derived mostly from that book.

I have read the entire collection of Christian scriptures, including the book of Hebrews. I think everyone should be Bible literate. Not only is it necessary for an appreciation of the classics and foundational documents of western society, but here in the West, Christianity is the dominant religion, and it behooves us to at least have a basic grasp of who is that is all around us and what compels them.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hmmm, ... that would be the pre-Sinai Tanakh that you're referring to, no? If not, you're comparing apples and pigs.
You and I did not stand at Sinai when the Torah was given to Israel. But your fathers did and their merit is imputed to their children, and to you. Consequently, all Jews are born without original sin. Some sages said that that mercy is granted to converts, for whom their guardian angels also stood at Sinai when the Torah was given. Lucky you. I'm a Gentile and not a convert. Who stood at Sinai for me? Looks like I'm stuck with original sin, eh?

The TaNaKh (Torah-laws, Nevi'im-prophets, Ketuvim-writings) goes way way beyond Sinai. The giving of the law occurs in the middle of the second book of the Torah, way at the beginning.

Judaism teaches that the souls of all Jews, including future Jews, were present at Sinai to accept the covenant. So, yes, I was at Sinai.

I don't believe in Original Sin -- that's a Christian idea. I believe that we possess a dual nature: an inclination to good, and an inclination to evil.

The fact that your soul was not at Sinai means that you are not shouldered with a covenant containing 613 laws. It doesn't mean you are second class, or that you won't be in the world to come. It just means that you have a different job in this world than that of the People of Israel. Is there some reason why you would WANT to take on 613 laws? I mean why would you WANT to? If you do, you can always come to us and become a Jew. But it's just not necessary. You can please God as a Gentile by keeping the seven laws of Noah (actually they are more like seven categories, but at any rate its a lot less than 613).

 

[Terry Sampson]

I don't believe in Original Sin -- that's a Christian idea.

Yeah, ... because the first Christians were Jews and they told us about it.
To Hebrew experts: did Eve sleep with the Serpent?, Post #74 and my graphic @ To Hebrew experts: did Eve sleep with the Serpent?, Post 108, duplicated below: