Blood is not necessary for atonement

[Kenny]

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.

I think the problem with this format is that it is constructing a position and then only finding those points that support that position at the expense of the rest of the scripture and some writing of Jewish thought.

[/QUOTE]
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.[/QUOTE]

Yes... it will be built again.

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

Why is the slaughter of animals simply because your god loves the smell of burning flesh a good thing?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And how can a law be written in your heart? Through love.
No-one is going to love a law, let alone 613 of them.

We will have the law written on our hearts because Hashem will fundamentally change something about our nature, just as he will change the nature of the wolf, which will lie down with the lamb.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The whole concept of our sinful nature is well addressed in the Tanakh.
It's embedded even in the stories in Genesis. Frankly it's everywhere
as warning, precautionary tales, admonitions etc.. Watch and deal with
your own nature. We have two natures given to us - that which we are
born with and that which we can aspire to through God.

No where in the Tanakh does it say that blame for the first sin is inherited by all of humanity. In fact, the Tanakh teaches that each man will be responsible for his own sin.

 

[dfnj]

Someday the Temple will be rebuilt. Sacrifices will resume.

The best thing about science over the past 200 years is debunking silly superstitions. I doubt very much slitting an animals throat will buy you favor with God. As far as I can tell God is mostly indifferent to the sufferings and affairs of men.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why is the slaughter of animals simply because your god loves the smell of burning flesh a good thing?

Liking the smell is FIGURATIVE. It is our adoration that is pleasing to him.

Sacrificing animals worked best, because it was a pastoral society, and animals made the best offering.

 

[PruePhillip]

No where in the Tanakh does it say that blame for the first sin is inherited by all of humanity. In fact, the Tanakh teaches that each man will be responsible for his own sin.

True, but the Tanakh speaks of our dual nature as children of God
and as sinful, mortal humans. The two natures within us is referenced
often in metaphor.

 

[PruePhillip]

We will have the law written on our hearts because Hashem will fundamentally change something about our nature, just as he will change the nature of the wolf, which will lie down with the lamb.

So when I read, "Thou shalt not kill" I will love this commandment?
But in having the nature of Christ, with His love and meekness, I
would not kill, not because I recall a law about this, but because
my Savior did not kill, but forgave and loved us.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Excuse me? LOL! A presumably-devout Jew, who by his own confession, acknowledges that he does not believe in original sin, wants to tell a Christian what it is and where the doctrine of it originated???

Welllllll this Jew has taken the time to study Christianity. I also check my memory by making liberal use of internet search engines. Your Calvinist beliefs (total depravity) are steeped in Augustinian theology. I realize, however, that because of your Protestant ideation it is important to you to insist that your doctrines have their origin in Scripture, and nowhere else.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

True, but the Tanakh speaks of our dual nature as children of God
and as sinful, mortal humans. The two natures within us is referenced
often in metaphor.

Yes, it does. But Original Sin goes much further than acknowledging we have an inclination to evil. It asserts we are guilty for Adam's sin, that we share the blame, that his sin marks us for hell, that because of Original Sin, even an unborn child is a sinner. THAT is not in the Tanakh. It's not even in teh NT.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So when I read, "Thou shalt not kill" I will love this commandment?
But in having the nature of Christ, with His love and meekness, I
would not kill, not because I recall a law about this, but because
my Savior did not kill, but forgave and loved us.

I don't know that you will love any commandment -- I don't know that commandments will exist since they will not be necessary -- right behavior will simply spring from the heart.

I'm sorry, but Christians do not have any law written on their hearts. You guys still have to be taught right from wrong, and even with this learning, you still sin. You have not been transformed in the manner that Jeremiah's "new covenant" prophesies.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes, it does. But Original Sin goes much further than acknowledging we have an inclination to evil. It asserts we are guilty for Adam's sin, that we share the blame, that his sin marks us for hell, that because of Original Sin, even an unborn child is a sinner. THAT is not in the Tanakh. It's not even in teh NT.

Yes, the Tanakh deals with this "first born nature."
There were no saints in the Tanakh who did not
need God's forgiveness.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Liking the smell is FIGURATIVE. It is our adoration that is pleasing to him.

Sacrificing animals worked best, because it was a pastoral society, and animals made the best offering.

I never understood why God needs to be adored. Is he deficient in some way that he needs it?

 

[PruePhillip]

I never understood why God needs to be adored. Is he deficient in some way that he needs it?

I don't know why men want to be adored. Is there something deficient in them?

 

[Tumah]

That is correct; now that I think about it. However, my point is still a valid one. The point is why does God not ask for a sacrifice for intentional sins and yet He forgives them anyway? My explanation: God does have a sacrifice for intentional sins; which is Jesus Christ.

The thing is - and this is important - He doesn't "forgive them anyway". They pay for the crime or they repent.

Just to repent is not actual payment for the sin.

Psalm 49:8 (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever

The redemption of a soul is precious indeed; in God's eyes and yet you don't know the price or the cost of it. In fact you think there is none.

This verse is saying that no one can pay to redeem the soul of another person. In other words, a person dies for his own sins.

It's funny that you quote that verse, being as your arguing that there's someone who pays for others' sins.

You can't explain why God asks sacrifices for unintentional sins but freely forgives intentional ones when people repent. That should raise questions in your mind. My point is there is a missing sacrifice for intentional sins. Which is not missing but to you it is.

Of course I can. Your wrong. G-d doesn't freely forgive intentional sins. We pay for them ourselves.

Don't tell me leviathan either. Good luck with that one.

Over my head.

Of course the only son is Isaac. That's my point. It foreshadows God's own sacrifice of His only Son. All of Genesis is allegory of other spiritual things.

Besides which Isaac would be the promised seed. It is by Isaac that the Messiah will come into the world. And this is why his "sacrifice" is so symbolic of the Messiah's own.

There's no reason to suggest there's any foreshadowing or symbolism here of the Messiah. Your interpolating that into the passage.

In other words, from reading this passage, you would never conceive of the NT. You need the NT to tell you to go back and read the passage differently. That's the problem I've been describing to you.

I didn't say you were quoting Talmud. It's just that you say the new Testament is so wrong. I believe the same way about the Talmud. So your opinion on the new Testament is just that: an opinion.

My interpretations look terrible compared to yours? Not my fault. You need to have your (spiritual) vision checked.

The truth is that only God can show the interpretation. Don't boast in yourself; but in the LORD. Because wisdom belongs to God and to know who it belongs to and who can give it is one of the first points of obtaining more wisdom.

You're right that you didn't say I was quoting the Talmud. But my argument is based on the fact that you are relying on the NT for your argument. That's clear, because without the NT, you'd never conceive of any of this. So it's not my vision that needs to be checked - I'm looking at these passages on their own merit. It's your vision that's been clouded by the NT, which is why Christians are commonly accused of cherry-picking verses out of their context.

And I saw that terrible post that only only people with divine spirit can really understand the Bible. Let's say you were fabricating a new religion out of whole cloth. And your new devotees come to you complaining that they're having trouble convincing other's to join them. What would you tell them? That's right: that only people who have "special insight" can see the "Truth". That'll give them the defense mechanism they need to not consider that they're off their rockers. So guess what...

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes, the Tanakh deals with this "first born nature."
There were no saints in the Tanakh who did not
need God's forgiveness.

Actually it talks about, i.e., Noah being righteous, and Job being perfect.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I never understood why God needs to be adored. Is he deficient in some way that he needs it?

God doesn't *need* anything. That doesn't mean it doesn't please him.

 

[Wandering Monk]

God doesn't *need* anything. That doesn't mean it doesn't please him.

How do you know adoration pleases God?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

How do you know adoration pleases God?

He has revealed it.

 

[moorea944]

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.

[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.]

I think the problem is with you saying that there is a problem... Scripture tells us that, "without the shedding of blood there is no remissions of sins." I dont see a problem there. We have to remember that the OT also tells us that there will be a new covenant. Scripture talks about the "blood of the new covenant.". Christ's sacrifice was to do what? And why did that happen?

We always look at God first. What does he want. We read in 2 Corin 5 that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself. So God was working with his son to bring back man to himself. And he did it through the death of his son.

We also look at Romans 5, "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."

The death our Lord means everything to us. Blood had to be shed. Look at Adam and Eve. When they sinned they sowed fig leaves together. God changed that to animal skins. Blood had to be shed for a "covering" or "atonement".

Hebrews 9 talks more about the blood of our Messiah. Also talks about Lev 16 when the High Priest goes into the Most Holy Place. Wonderful chapters!! Christ didnt give a sacrific, he WAS the sacrifice!! For us. To bring us back to God. Just like scripture tells us.

But..... to say that there is a problem with God has said, I think we really need to be careful on what we say about our Creator. God has "setup" a divine order for us to follow. Rules, statues, commandments, etc.... Why do you think Jesus told his Apostles to remember his death?