Blood is not necessary for atonement

[Terry Sampson]

it is important to you to insist that your doctrines have their origin in Scripture, and nowhere else.

Ha! And I don't suppose that it is important to you to insist that my doctrines do not have their origin in Scripture but somewhere else, far from Israel and long after Jesus was dead, is it?
For the record,

• Unlike most Christians who recognize and value a covenant with HaShem, I believe there are two covenants: one between HaShem and Israel and the other between Christians and the Resurrected Jesus Christ, who is the Mediator between our Father and me. That puts me pretty far outside of the "Calvinist" box that you may think I'm in. That also means that I do not believe that either covenant replaces or should replace the other. You ought to consider thinking about Christianity the same way: as a possible second covenant, ... for Gentiles only. It's quite liberating.
  • As for the differences that exist and remain, they don't trouble me and here's why: [Bavli, Sanhedrin 105a] "The ministering Angels exclaimed before the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Sovereign of the Universe! If David comes, who slew the Philistine and gave possession of Gath to thy children. [and complains at Thy giving a share in the world to come to Doeg and Ahitophel], what wilt thou do with him?' He replied, 'It is My duty to make them friends with each other.'"
• Unlike most Christians who claim that the Resurrected Jesus Christ is Israel's long-awaited Messiah, I believe they are seriously mistaken and I defer to Israel to define who is and who is not the Messiah to come in this world. IMO, Israel's Messiah to come in this world is not the one I'm waiting for. I think that puts me pretty far outside of any "Protestant" and "Catholic" boxes that you may have in mind to put me in.
• I was intrigued by your Tanakh-lite version of atonement in your OP. We ought to run the fuller picture up the flagpole and see what folks think of two of the of examples that you gave in which you say "blood is not necessary for atonement".
  • What do you think folks who don't know the whole story would say if they found out that the LORD's anger over the mutiny against Moses resulted in the earth opening up and swallowing Korah, Dathan, Abiram, their wives, their children, and everything they owned; and fire sent by the LORD that consumed the 250 community leaders who had sided with Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. And, the next day, when Moses sent Aaron out to atone for the grumbling of other Israelites who were unhappy about the events the day before, Aaron didn't run quick enough and the plague killed 14,700 people before it stopped.
  • Or what do you think they would say about the consequences of King David's adultery (not, as you wrote, idolatry), i.e. when David confessed to the prophet Nathan: "I have sinned against the Lord", Nathan told him: "The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die" David sinned, repented, and lived, but the child of his adultery died.
  • I note that the sinners in those stories "stood at Sinai". Christians didn't, apart from our Resurrected Jesus. If you take our Jesus away from us, you leave us without anyone to stand at Sinai for us.
• In post #37, I suggested that you might be comparing apples and pigs. In this post, I tell you bluntly: you're comparing apples and pigs and you seem to think you're saying something important when you point out that apples don't have feet.
  • Your comparison is silly because, as I said, it compares two radically different revelations: Torah and Jesus.
    
  • Your comparison is unwarranted because the Torah is not Jesus and Jesus is not the Torah.
    
  • Your comparison is non-constructive because it adds puts another log on a smouldering fire.
  • And your comparison is offensive because it's based on the premise that, if we Christians weren't so stupid, we'd realize that Jesus wasted his life, accomplished nothing substantial or beneficial to anybody, and he should have stuck to carpentry because at least then he might have done something useful for himself, his family, his people, and his God.
  • The complaint your OP echos is over 2000 years old. The cause for your complaint is not going away until, IMO, HaShem, His Bat Kol, His Shekhinah, the Messiah to come in this world, and the Sabaoth put an end to it once and for all.
    
  • Meanwhile, jackals move in and carry off Jewish and Christian lambs and weak sheep at an increasingly alarming rate.
  • You say that you have taken the time to study Christianity. Good for you but, IMO, your time would have been better utilized by studying Torah, because your OP suggests to me that you're pretty committed to the notion that Jesus was and is not necessary. And I say: well and good; it's a little late to ask, but can I have him. Consider it a mitzvoth under the gleaning law [Leviticus 23:22; Deuteronomy 24:19). Let's strike a bargain here and now: You promise not to come back and take him from me and I promise not to ask, much less, demand that you accept him as the Messiah of this world.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

[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?

Hello Moore. So nice to make your acquaintance.

Since we are getting to know one another, let me say up front that I have no problem with non-Jews being Christians. Christians worship God and are good people, and that's what matters. Sure we Jews disagree with your theology, especially the deification of a man. But Judaism is more interested in right behavior than right belief. I hope that you will become the very best Christian that you can be.

That said, it's a debate forum, so while in regular life I would never pick at a Christian's belief's, this is the appropriate place where such things are welcome. We *want* each other to point out differences and make arguments for our respective beliefs. It seldom changes any minds, but you never know. If it gets us to think more about our own beliefs and draw nearer to God, that's a pretty good deal.

Basically your argument is that the NT teaches that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins, and I take it that you hold this to be inspired of God and therefore of adequate authority.

But that's my point precisely. Christianity teaches it. Judaism's Tanakh (what you call the Old Testament) certainly does not teach it, and I gave my arguments of what the Tanakh actually does teach.

You can quote all the NT verses you want, and they will have no impact on me. To me, the Christian scriptures are an intellectual interest. They contradict each other and they certainly contradict the Tanakh. They are not inspired of God, and have no authority for me. If you think that quoting a verse helps you word something better, then by all means quote away. But if you think that by quoting the NT you have made a point with me, think again.

 

[74x12]

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

Not really what I'm talking about. Repentance is clearly necessary; but God still must forgive. (Psalm 103:3) In fact David makes it seem as if sin is a personal injury against God. (Psalm 51:4)

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.

Yes, of course. But, I cited this verse to show that the redemption of a soul is considered (by God) to be "precious". Which is what we can infer from it. That's not to take away from the primary meaning of the verse or Psalm.

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

Yes, with His righteous blood; not with money like they were condemned for in the Psalm.

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

Yes if we don't repent we pay for it. Correct. But that's clearly not what I'm talking about.

I'm speaking of who is paying for forgiven sins?

Isaiah 43:25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

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.

We can see it now clearly. I agree that back then it was hidden. God hides all things so that He can reveal them in their proper time.

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

This is why people should walk in the Light as it is given to them. "those things which are revealed belong unto us"

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

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.

I agree that the NT explains many mysteries in the OT. And there are even more mysteries to be revealed. But the scriptures are deep. The primary meaning shouldn't be overridden by the esoteric meaning. But we shouldn't ignore the esoteric either.

This is why we need the Spirit to understand because we won't get the full meaning unless God shows us. Then we'll see it very clearly; until then it's hidden.

And I saw that terrible post that only only people with divine spirit can really understand the Bible.

Haha.

God gave the scriptures by the Divine Spirit in the gift of prophecy (Micah 3:8) and He reveals it the same way.

Psalm 119:169 Let my cry come near before thee, O Lord: give me understanding according to thy word.

Genesis 40:8 And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you.

Proverbs 1:6 to understand a proverb and a figure, the words of the wise and their riddles. (RSV)

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...

We believe that people should be converted by God Himself. If you aren't converted as by the power of God; then your only partially converted because you haven't seen for yourself; what others have told you about. For example it's easy to read about miracles in the Bible but if you don't see/experience them yourself you will have a hard time believing in it.

When God Himself converts us then we'll have a stable foundation and we'll be able to resist the storms that will come our way.

So we believe that the grace of God is what saves anyone and when they come to Him. And they'll know even more if they keep walking with God.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Ha! And I don't suppose that it is important to you to insist that my doctrines do not have their origin in Scripture but somewhere else, far from Israel and long after Jesus was dead, is it?
For the record,

• Unlike most Christians who recognize and value a covenant with HaShem, I believe there are two covenants: one between HaShem and Israel and the other between Christians and the Resurrected Jesus Christ, who is the Mediator between our Father and me. That puts me pretty far outside of the "Calvinist" box that you may think I'm in. That also means that I do not believe that either covenant replaces or should replace the other. You ought to consider thinking about Christianity the same way: as a possible second covenant, ... for Gentiles only. It's quite liberating.

That you respect that Israel still has a valid covenant rather than buying into replacement theology is a definite plus. Certainly churches that teach all five points of Calvinism don't teach this. However, only Calvinism teaches total depravity. The fact that you believe in total depravity shows that you accept at least one of Calvinism's five points.

• Unlike most Christians who claim that the Resurrected Jesus Christ is Israel's long-awaited Messiah, I believe they are seriously mistaken and I defer to Israel to define who is and who is not the Messiah to come in this world. IMO, Israel's Messiah to come in this world is not the one I'm waiting for. I think that puts me pretty far outside of any "Protestant" and "Catholic" boxes that you may have in mind to put me in.

I need a clarification here. Are you saying that Jesus is the Messiah but just not the Jewish Messiah? Or are you saying point blank that Jesus is just not the Messiah at all (which would put you completely outside the Christian camp)????

• What do you think folks who don't know the whole story would say if they found out that the LORD's anger over the mutiny against Moses resulted in the earth opening up and swallowing Korah, Dathan, Abiram, their wives, their children, and everything they owned; and fire sent by the LORD that consumed the 250 community leaders who had sided with Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. And, the next day, when Moses sent Aaron out to atone for the grumbling of other Israelites who were unhappy about the events the day before, Aaron didn't run quick enough and the plague killed 14,700 people before it stopped.

What they would say would vary from person to person. If you have a point to make, just make it. Don't expect me to make it for you.

• Or what do you think they would say about the consequences of King David's adultery (not, as you wrote, idolatry), i.e. when David confessed to the prophet Nathan: "I have sinned against the Lord", Nathan told him: "The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die" David sinned, repented, and lived, but the child of his adultery died.

I can't believe I typed idolatry. LOL Good catch.

Again the responses would vary from person to person.

If you are asking why God would punish David after having forgiven him, the answer is simply that God teaches in order to help us to a higher level. Usually teaching involves some kind of consequence or trial to go through. We don't do our learning on the mountain tops up near the heavens. We do our learning down in the valleys.

• I note that the sinners in those stories "stood at Sinai". Christians didn't, apart from our Resurrected Jesus. If you take our Jesus away from us, you leave us without anyone to stand at Sinai for us.

As I already stated, there is NO REASON for you to have stood at Sinai. The covenant with Israel is NOT FOR YOU. It is not for the world. It is only with Israel. Just as our priests have a different job and different responsibilities, and therefore laws they must follow that don't bind regular Jews, in the same way, Israel as a priestly people has a different job and different responsibilities, and therefore 613 laws, almost all of which are not binding on the rest of the world. You should be happy that you are not a Jew, because you have only seven laws (or categories) to obey, rather than 613 -- it's so much easier for you to please God.

• Your comparison is silly because, as I said, it compares two radically different revelations: Torah and Jesus.
• Your comparison is unwarranted because the Torah is not Jesus and Jesus is not the Torah.

Actually I have not compared anything to Jesus. Finding Jesus means trying to peel away the Gentile legends that were added on to him in the gospels.

What I compared was the Tanakh to the Christian Scriptures in general (NT), esp Hebrew 9:22 (of which the author is unknown).

The two can rightly be compared and contrasted because
1. they conflict with each other
2. yet despite this Christians claim that they don't conflict.

• And your comparison is offensive because it's based on the premise that, if we Christians weren't so stupid, we'd realize that Jesus wasted his life, accomplished nothing substantial or beneficial to anybody, and he should have stuck to carpentry because at least then he might have done something useful for himself, his family, his people, and his God.

I don't think Christians are stupid. I think what happens is that you are taught certain doctrines before you ever really search the Tanakh. The emphasis in Christianity is the NT, and that when the Tanakh is read, it is read through the lens of the NT. Even in the case of your scholars, they are so drilled in these doctrines that by the time they advance to looking fully at the Tanakh, they are quite incapable of reading it any other way except through the Christian grid. That's not an example of stupidity. That's an example of being indoctrinated.

What I propose instead is the following approach: The Tanakh came first, and we all agree that it is the Word of God. It is therefore the Reed by which all other communications are judged as to whether they are of God or not. If something like the Quran or the Book of Mormon or the Christian Scriptures contradict the Tanakh, then the answer is that the Quran or the BoM or the NT are not the word of God.

And in the OP, I gave the example of Hebrews 9:22 as being an instance of where the Christian Scriptures contradict the Tanakh.

• You say that you have taken the time to study Christianity. Good for you but, IMO, your the time you have spent would have been better utilized by studying Torah, because your OP suggests to me that you're pretty committed to the notion that Jesus was and is not necessary. And I say: well and good; it's a little late to ask, but can I have him. Consider it a mitzvoth under the gleaning law [Leviticus 23:22; Deuteronomy 24:19). Let's strike a bargain here and now: You promise not to come back and take him from me and I promise not to ask, much less, demand that you accept him as the Messiah of this world.

The first time I read the Torah, with the help of my mother, from start to finish, I believe I was about seven. Could I have spent more of my life studying Torah? Undoubtedly. There are certainly Jews in this forum who are more educated about Torah than I am. But compared to Christians? Come on. Most Christians would rather have a tooth pulled than read the laws.

It actually doesn't bother me that you are a Christian. The only thing I expect from non Jews is that you all believe in God and act like good decent human beings. Chrisitans mostly fall into that category. I hope you will become the very best Christian that you can be.

It actually doesn't matter to me whether you are sola scriptura or not. Catholics have a strong oral tradition (like Jews) and I have no problem with them. I only have a problem when someone says that something is in the scriptures and it is not, and they do so to incorporate oral tradition while insisting they are sola scriptura!

In the meantime, we come here for fun to debate and have our consciousness stretched. Let's continue to enjoy it. Hopefully it will help us think about our own walk, and we will draw closer to Hashem.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Terry Sampson]

1. However, only Calvinism teaches total depravity.
   
2. The fact that you believe in total depravity shows that you accept at least one of Calvinism's five points.

Re: #1. Not accurate. I personally know of others who believe and teach TD, as even Total depravity - Wikipedia points out:

• “Total depravity (also called radical corruption or pervasive depravity) is a Christian theological doctrine derived from the concept of original sin. It is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin as a result of their fallen nature and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God, refrain from evil, or accept the gift of salvation as it is offered.”
• "It is advocated to various degrees by many Protestant confessions of faith and catechisms, including those of some Lutheran synods, and Calvinism. Arminians, such as Methodists, believe and teach total depravity, but with distinct differences. The key distinction between the total depravity embraced by Calvin and the total depravity taught by Arminius is the distinction between irresistible grace and prevenient grace.”
• "The Roman Catholic Church maintains that man cannot, "be justified before God by his own works, ... without the grace of God through Jesus Christ", thereby rejecting Pelagianism in accordance with the writings of Augustine and the Second Council of Orange However, even strictly Augustinian Catholics disagree with the Protestant doctrine of total depravity. Referring to Scripture and the Church Fathers, Catholicism views human free will as deriving from God's image because humans are created in God's image. Accordingly, the Council of Trent, at its sixth session (January 1547), condemned as heresy any doctrine asserting "since Adam's sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished".
• "The Orthodox Church embraces the "semi-Augustinian" position of John Cassian and also defends Augustine of Hippo relating to this doctrine. Seraphim Rose, for example, contends that Augustine never denied the free will of every human, thus he never taught total depravity. Archbishop Chrysostomos has likewise asserted that Augustine's teaching might have been used and distorted in Western Christianity to produce innovative theologizing, and it is not Augustine's fault.”

Re: #2. As noted above, many Christians accept some form of the notion of Total Depravity. Calvin was one. I am another. I am no more a Calvinist than Calvin is a Sampsonite. Some Christians subscribe to some form of Total Depravity but not to Free Will; others subscribe to some form of Total Depravity and Free Will with limitations; yet others affirm Total Depravity and unlimited Free Will. And I suspect, but do know for certain, there are some who call themselves Christian and do not subscribe to any depravity but do believe in unlimited Free Will, who move me to wonder why they call themselves Christian because they do not need or believe in his function as a Savior. [What's the use of a savior when no one needs to be saved.] Bottom Line: I may look like and quack like a Calvinist, but I’m not a Calvinist.

 

[sojourner]

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.

Repentance was certainly the Gospel message Jesus preached. And I think people tend to misunderstand what was meant by saying that “without the shedding of blood...”. Jesus didn’t have to die for our sins. But his self-sacrifice was one of love (if you follow the theology), God’s self-sacrifice for us. The religious authorities and the Romans were trying to quash the message of God’s coming kingdom — one built on love, equity, mercy, forbearance, hospitality — one that lifted the lowly and sent the rich away empty — one that didn’t recognize the power of might or money. Jesus was willing to go to the mat rather than recant anything he had taught. Without that message of reconciliation, and without the showing of love outpoured, reconciliation is not possible.

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

How do you know it is figurative? You assume it is because it fits your narrative.

 

[moorea944]

Hello Moore. So nice to make your acquaintance.

Since we are getting to know one another, let me say up front that I have no problem with non-Jews being Christians. Christians worship God and are good people, and that's what matters. Sure we Jews disagree with your theology, especially the deification of a man. But Judaism is more interested in right behavior than right belief. I hope that you will become the very best Christian that you can be.

That said, it's a debate forum, so while in regular life I would never pick at a Christian's belief's, this is the appropriate place where such things are welcome. We *want* each other to point out differences and make arguments for our respective beliefs. It seldom changes any minds, but you never know. If it gets us to think more about our own beliefs and draw nearer to God, that's a pretty good deal.

Basically your argument is that the NT teaches that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins, and I take it that you hold this to be inspired of God and therefore of adequate authority.

But that's my point precisely. Christianity teaches it. Judaism's Tanakh (what you call the Old Testament) certainly does not teach it, and I gave my arguments of what the Tanakh actually does teach.

You can quote all the NT verses you want, and they will have no impact on me. To me, the Christian scriptures are an intellectual interest. They contradict each other and they certainly contradict the Tanakh. They are not inspired of God, and have no authority for me. If you think that quoting a verse helps you word something better, then by all means quote away. But if you think that by quoting the NT you have made a point with me, think again.

No worries. Have a wonderful day.

 

[whirlingmerc]

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.

Yes God required blood sacrifice of various animals
No, they were not sufficient in themselves
Hence the need for an ultimate sacrifice which also brings a transformation and a new heart with a repentance that leads to life

"Create in me a new heart" Ps 51
In Messiah "God will throw our sins into the depths of the sea"

 

[Link]

Hello Moore. So nice to make your acquaintance.

Since we are getting to know one another, let me say up front that I have no problem with non-Jews being Christians. Christians worship God and are good people, and that's what matters. Sure we Jews disagree with your theology, especially the deification of a man. But Judaism is more interested in right behavior than right belief. I hope that you will become the very best Christian that you can be.

That said, it's a debate forum, so while in regular life I would never pick at a Christian's belief's, this is the appropriate place where such things are welcome. We *want* each other to point out differences and make arguments for our respective beliefs. It seldom changes any minds, but you never know. If it gets us to think more about our own beliefs and draw nearer to God, that's a pretty good deal.

Basically your argument is that the NT teaches that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins, and I take it that you hold this to be inspired of God and therefore of adequate authority.

But that's my point precisely. Christianity teaches it. Judaism's Tanakh (what you call the Old Testament) certainly does not teach it, and I gave my arguments of what the Tanakh actually does teach.

You can quote all the NT verses you want, and they will have no impact on me. To me, the Christian scriptures are an intellectual interest. They contradict each other and they certainly contradict the Tanakh. They are not inspired of God, and have no authority for me. If you think that quoting a verse helps you word something better, then by all means quote away. But if you think that by quoting the NT you have made a point with me, think again.

Read the Gospels with becoming acquainted with Shiite hadiths from Ahlulbayt (as) about the position of Leadership from God, and you will see Jesus all he was really manifesting was what Jews Had with the chosen leaders like David, Solomon, Elijah, etc, and that he was one of them, but God went all out in revealing their position in exaggerated prose, because, people had not recognized the divine favor of God through the Kings he appointed - that is the Messengers he sent to them.

It's interpretation of the Tanakh, but also shows where the Tanakh went wrong, which most Christians don't recognize.

The Gospels are definitely from God, they are what God was saying in the Tanakh through Seth being "set by God" all the way through. Of course, when Torah says Aaron went astray as did his sister, and says Saul turned evil, the concept of the anointed set and chosen ones by God is broken.

You shouldn't just read Gospels according to how Christians interpret or translate, nor Tanakh just as Jews do, nor Quran just as Muslims, but you are to go the gates of God and try to find them if you aren't sure, and seek signs and clarity from God by constantly praying to him.

I swear, if Quran was proven to be fabricated, I would not rely on clergy to think for me still, but await the likes of Elijah to clarify and return, and reflect over revelations without the noise of people claiming they represent it with no proof.

I would rather die of thirst, then mix God's clean water and springs, with that of pollution from the self-appointed representatives.

 

[sojourner]

Yes God required blood sacrifice of various animals
No, they were not sufficient in themselves
Hence the need for an ultimate sacrifice which also brings a transformation and a new heart with a repentance that leads to life

"Create in me a new heart" Ps 51
In Messiah "God will throw our sins into the depths of the sea"

That was 2000 years ago. Sin is still very, very prevalent. Your theology is skewed.

 

[74x12]

That was 2000 years ago. Sin is still very, very prevalent. Your theology is skewed.

May I refer you to 2 Peter 3:8-9?

 

[sojourner]

May I refer you to 2 Peter 3:8-9?

No, you may not. That chapter is about the end times, not about the messiah doing away with sin. This is what irks me about people who think they’re bible scholars. I don’t know what your specialty is, but please leave the exegesis to the professionals and don’t quit your day job.

 

[74x12]

No, you may not. That chapter is about the end times, not about the messiah doing away with sin. This is what irks me about people who think they’re bible scholars. I don’t know what your specialty is, but please leave the exegesis to the professionals and don’t quit your day job.

Someone's snippy ...

Well, just read the verse for yourself. It's clear that God waits because He wants people to repent. That's all I meant by referring to the verse.

 

[whirlingmerc]

That was 2000 years ago. Sin is still very, very prevalent. Your theology is skewed.

The fulfillment is here and not yet in different senses
so... actually.... no

Believers ultimately are completely freed in glory from sin forever in Messiah
Unbelievers are bound by it forever

 

[sojourner]

Someone's snippy ...

Well, just read the verse for yourself. It's clear that God waits because He wants people to repent. That's all I meant by referring to the verse.

Yeah, but that’s not germane to my post.

 

[sojourner]

The fulfillment is here and not yet in different senses
so... actually.... no

Believers ultimately are completely freed in glory from sin forever in Messiah
Unbelievers are bound by it forever

And yet they still sin and are bound by it. No one is immune. Your statement simply doesn’t ring true.

 

[whirlingmerc]

And yet they still sin and are bound by it. No one is immune. Your statement simply doesn’t ring true.

How do you win against a 300 lb gorilla? fight a dead gorilla. Starve the sin nature.

Bound? no

"If by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the flesh you will live" says Romans 8

There is a God glorifying God ordained struggle till death between the old and new natures where believers are dependent on God to fight.

And then in glory free completely.

 

[1213]

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,...

Bigger “problem” is that according to the Bible Jesus forgave sins without blood. And Jewish leaders didn’t like that Jesus forgave sins.

The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, answered them, "Why are you reasoning so in your hearts? Which is easier to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you;' or to say, 'Arise and walk?' But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (he said to the paralyzed man), "I tell you, arise, and take up your cot, and go to your house." Immediately he rose up before them, and took up that which he was laying on, and departed to his house, glorifying God.
Luke 5:21-25

Jesus had the right to forgive sins. And he gave the same right for his disciples.

Whoever's sins you forgive, they are forgiven them. Whoever's sins you retain, they have been retained."
John 20:23

So, Jesus didn’t have to die to forgive sins.

...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.

I don’t think it is good, if people continue to sacrifice, because people should be righteous and free from sin, so that they would not need any sacrifices.

you go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Mat. 9:13

 

[whirlingmerc]

Bigger “problem” is that according to the Bible Jesus forgave sins without blood. And Jewish leaders didn’t like that Jesus forgave sins.

The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, answered them, "Why are you reasoning so in your hearts? Which is easier to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you;' or to say, 'Arise and walk?' But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (he said to the paralyzed man), "I tell you, arise, and take up your cot, and go to your house." Immediately he rose up before them, and took up that which he was laying on, and departed to his house, glorifying God.
Luke 5:21-25

Jesus had the right to forgive sins. And he gave the same right for his disciples.

Whoever's sins you forgive, they are forgiven them. Whoever's sins you retain, they have been retained."
John 20:23

So, Jesus didn’t have to die to forgive sins.



I don’t think it is good, if people continue to sacrifice, because people should be righteous and free from sin, so that they would not need any sacrifices.

you go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Mat. 9:13

In a Christian view the temple is being rebuilt. It is the church, the body of Christ. It even has a royal priesthood, the believers in it.

unless the Lord build 'the house' [aka the temple, the church) the builders labor in vain'
Psalm 127 written by the temple builder himself Solomon