• 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!

EVERLASTING OLD COVENANT (Jew V Christian)

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
It is our choice not to be happy and full of joy and peaceful. Personally I can only find happiness when I talk of G_d.

I also consider that the suns ray penetrate the darkness well before the Sun has risen. In fact the Bab and Baha'u'llah were being proclaimed starting in the late 1700's, the Sun was due to rise again and the heat and rays were beginning to penetrate the Mind of man.

They are God's Prophets for all of Humanity, no person or race owns them. ;) They claim our hearts and we give to them one and all our hearts freely, if we so choose.

Regards Tony
Tony, tony...

I have no problem with God, and in general, I'm probably the happiest person in real life that I know. :)

That doesn't mean I have to be happy with what everyone says, especially when I find people twisting facts or engaging in bad logic.

However, I'm certain this doesn't reflect on your moral character. The odds are that you are a good person, and I would like you very much were I to meet you in real life. (I'm a very easy going person who sees the best in others.)

God certainly cares about all of humanity. When the Messiah comes, he will rule Israel from Jerusalem, but the entire world will recognize him and benefit from his reign -- which is why there will be no wars.

That doesn't mean the prophecies aren't Jewish in nature.

The world is like a society in which different people have different roles. One person is a CEO and another is a secretary, another is a priest and yet another is a computer tech, another is the mayor while another is a gardner. It works because everyone does there different jobs well, as a community. In the world, Jews have a specific job -- that as a priestly people. We are set apart for that purpose. It doesn't make us better or more loved or anything. It's just a different job. And with that job comes different responsibilities.

It's why the Torah was given to us, why the Prophets were Jews, and why the Messiah will be a Jew. All this fits with the Jews as a priestly people sort of thing.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It's just a different job. And with that job comes different responsibilities.

A very Great responsibility, may the Jews preserve and keep It all safe. ;) We need to be awake and prepared for when the dawn is greeted by many people.

Would love to meet you and have that cuppa.

Regards Tony
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The Tanakh was written by Jews for Jews about Jews. It is also to be interpreted by Jews. But even scholars who have no axe to grind (IOW secular scholars who aren't trying to force our texts into a Christian or Bahai mold) agree with the Jewish interpretations.
A very egocentric view of ancient texts that are edited, redacted and compiled by unknown authors with poor provenance, Actually compiled and edited from older Canaanite, Ugarite, Babylonian and Sumerian cuneiform texts..
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I've had just about enough of the Baha'i twisting of our Prophets. Your explanations clearly dont meet the criteria. For example, the Edict of Toleration, for example, did not happen due to the declaration of the Bab. Indeed according to you it preceded it. An effect cannot precede the cause. Another example being that there is no New Jerusalem, there is only Jerusalem, and there is no messiah ruling from it. The final example being that Baha'is say "Peace, peace, when there is no peace."

I've had enough of Jews claiming the Torah and Tanakh is so pure and sacred and has any more known provenance than any other ancient scripture like the NT. It actually represents plagiarism and corruption of more ancient cuneiform texts
 
Last edited:

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Here we go........


This shows that you believe that Luke adjusted his story, and, by the way, there were only two taxations in the provinces of Idumea, Judea and Samaria (known jointly as Judaea) both in the same year.

And you STILL have a Mary that was pregnant in Herod the Great's life and in 6AD!

There the first of scores and scores of errors and maniopulations. :)


Rubbish.
A typical example of error and manipulation is in John's timeline, where he sends Jesus in to the Temple to demonstrate in the first days of his campaign, rather than in the last week of his life.




In Timothy.......... !!! Pauline waffle.??



You believe. .....
I've got no problem with beliefs, it's just that you're claiming certitude about how perfect the bible and gospels are, and you're wrong.

How come that G-John gives and different date for the last supper to the synoptics? (Nisan 14 and not Nisan 15 ..... which is right... please?)

Before we start to look at the issue of the Last Supper, let's see if we can clear up the first of your alleged inaccuracies.

Luke starts his Gospel with these words,
'Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are surely believed among us,
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word.' [Luke 1:1,2.]

Luke wants us to know that he has taken great care to gather reliable evidence from people who were 'eyewitnesses'. Secondly, he intends to present this information 'in order'. This will be helpful in our deliberation.

Luke 1:5; We are given the context of his Gospel; Luke states that 'in the days of Herod, the king of Judea.'
Luke 2:1-3; 'And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius [Greek for Quirinius] was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.'

Now you and I believe that Herod the Great, who is here mentioned as the king of Judea, died at Jericho in 4 B.C. So, Luke is clearly telling us about the events that preceded Herod's death.

Ussher adds this:
6082. After Herod had ordered these things, he died on the fifth day after he had executed Antipater. He had held the kingdom for thirty-four years after having killed Antigonus, but thirty-seven years from the time that he was declared king by the Romans. [Josephus, Antiq. 1.17.c.8.s.1.(191) 8:459] He started to reign after the death of Antigonus in 37BC because 31 BC was the seventh year of his reign in which the battle of Actium was fought. [Josephus, Jewish War,1.1.c.19.s.2.(370) 2:173,175.] Hence 4BC. would be the last year of his thirty-four year reign. He died about 25 of November, that is, the 7th of the month of Chisleu, which was therefore accounted a joyful and a festival day, because on that day: 'Herod died, who hated all wise men.'

To demonstrate that Luke was aware that another census took place in A.D.6, ten years later, we have to turn to the book of Acts, also written by Luke. Here Luke states:[Acts 5:36,37.]
'For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.
After this rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.'

So, Luke knew about the taxing of A.D.6, and he also knew about another registration that took place under Herod, ten years earlier.

In evidence that I provided in an earlier post , I quoted this:' in the year 1764 a fragment of a sepulchral inscription, now in the the Museum of the Vatican, was found in the Tiber. It states that the person, to whose memory it was dedicated, was Proconsul of Asia, and that he was TWICE governor of the imperial province of Syria and Phoenicia. Mommsen, Merivale, and other historical critics of the highest authority, hold that the person thus designated was Quirinius.'

Now, Luke doesn't say that Quirinius ordered the census of 4BC, only that he was governor of Syria at the time of the registration. We know that Octavian, or Caesar Augustus, ordered that 'all the world should be taxed'.

And here we can add a very significant piece of evidence to distinguish between the two registrations. When the Romans administered a registration they called on citizens to be registered in the place where he was a citizen. If it took place according to Jewish custom, it would have been in connection with the tribe and family (or, as Luke phrases it, according to 'the house and lineage'). This is why Joseph and Mary had to travel all the way from Nazareth to Bethlehem to be registered.

The closer one looks at Luke's record, the more one can appreciate that it was undertaken with the greatest of care and attention. Let us also not forget that Luke was a disciple of Jesus Christ. The gift of Holy Spirit includes the power to prophesy.
 
Last edited:

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
God sent people to help take others from bad situations. The person who "redeems" a relatives blood through vengeance is textually a "go'el". A relative who marries a widow of a relative is a redeemer. The leader who will help take the people from the midst of exile is a go'el, a redeemer. That's how the word is used -- to describe a force that takes people out of a situation. I don't recall, though, that it is ever used textually to refer to sin. Can you show me that?

EDIT -- a side note: I fear you are confused between two Hebrew words, each of which is translated at various points as "redeem". The one in which someone pays for something (like redeemed a child, or a hostage) is Podeh. The "redeemer" here, who doesn't pay for anything but simpy saves is Go'el. The future king is described as a go'el, one who saves. He does not have to pay for it with anything.

I would argue that both words, Podeh and Go'el, involve paying a price for something that has been lost, or taken from you. As you say, it would not be inaccurate to use the term 'salvation', but the important difference between being 'redeemed' and being 'saved' is that the person doing the redeeming is having to pay a price, and sometimes that price can be high.

In terms of sin, we know from the story of Adam that sin has the effect of dividing man from God. Spiritual closeness is lost when man is in a state of sin. Why else would God have asked the question, 'Where art thou?' [Gen.3:9]

Imo, God now looks upon his creation as lost sheep. He is the Good Shepherd, and it is He who seeks the lost and, having found them, holds them close. To my understanding this is both a saving and a redemption. God saves the lost by bringing them to safety. He redeems the lost by paying a price for their salvation, namely, taking the punishment for their initial transgression. The Redeemer, in the context of Isaiah 59:20,21 must therefore, take the punishment of death. Death is the wages of sin.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Adding the NT to the Tanakh is like adding the Book of Mormon to the Bible. It's just ludicrous.

Here are two examples of atonement without blood.

1. And Aaron took as Moses spoke, and ran into the midst of the assembly; and, behold, the plague was begun among the people; and he put on the incense, and made atonement for the people. Numbers 17:12 JPS (16:47 in Christian Bibles).

2. But if his means suffice not for two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he shall bring his offering for that wherein he hath sinned, the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin-offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon; for it is a sin-offering. Leviticus 5:11 JPS

These are not examples of atonement without blood!

Numbers 16:47,48: 'And Aaron took as Moses commanded, and ran into the midst of the congregation; and, behold, the plague was begun among the people: and he put on incense, and made an atonement for the people.
And he stood between the dead and the living; and the plague was stayed.'

You'll notice that a comma exists between 'he put on incense' and the statement 'and made an atonement for the people.' The atonement involves the shedding of blood.

In Leviticus 5:11 a poor man's offering can be 'the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering'. But the passage does not stop there; you've failed to read verse 13, where it adds, 'And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned'.
So blood is shed on the poor man's behalf by the priest!
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
I would argue that both words, Podeh and Go'el, involve paying a price for something that has been lost, or taken from you.
You can argue that if you want, but this has been decided well before you and by those above your pay grade
Words of Redemption by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein

Why else would God have asked the question, 'Where art thou?' [Gen.3:9]
For the same reason that I knock on the my kid's door and ask "are you in there?" after she runs up crying and I know she is in there. I want to be invited in because it shows that she is ready to talk.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
You'll notice that a comma exists between 'he put on incense' and the statement 'and made an atonement for the people.'
What? A comma?
First, here is the phrase in the Hebrew
וַיִּתֵּן֙ אֶֽת־הַקְּטֹ֔רֶת וַיְכַפֵּ֖ר עַל־הָעָֽם
notice the lack of a comma (also, notice the tipcha under vayechaper without the mercha)

Next, here is another translation (if you must use a translation)
"He put on the incense and made expiation for the people;"
So any conclusion you want to draw, inventing a blood component where the text doesn't have one based on the presence in one translation of a comma is fatally flawed by the lack of said comma in the source-Hebrew or in other English translations.

In Leviticus 5:11 a poor man's offering can be 'the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering'. But the passage does not stop there; you've failed to read verse 13, where it adds, 'And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned'.
So blood is shed on the poor man's behalf by the priest!
The text never says that blood is shed. It says that the priest makes atonement based on the offering of fine flour. That's it. You want to introduce an idea of blood which is conspicuously absent. It simply isn't there.

Verse 12 begins the process:
He shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall scoop out of it a handful as a token portion of it and turn it into smoke on the altar, with the LORD’s offerings by fire; it is a sin offering.

and then verse 13
Thus the priest shall make expiation on his behalf for whichever of these sins he is guilty, and he shall be forgiven. It shall belong to the priest, like the meal offering.

Of course, it would be easier to explain this in the Hebrew.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Luke starts his Gospel with these words,
'Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are surely believed among us,
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of no idea the word.' [Luke 1:1,2.]
You see? Luke had no idea whether any of his collected documents came from 'eyewitnesses'. :shrug:
I do accept that some of his documents probably did come from direct witnesses, but Luke had about which.

Now you have already agreed with me that the census mentioned was sated to 6AD, and we know that King Herod lived until either 4 or 2/1BC. Now, if you can't see the craziness of the length of pregnancy I can only hope that other readers will recognise this as one of many many errors in the gospels. Of course there were many additions, inclusions, manipulations and editions to the gospel as well as errors, which is why dedicated historians have to sift through all .... over and over, for an objective assessment.


Luke wants us to know that he has taken great care to gather reliable evidence from people who were 'eyewitnesses'. Secondly, he intends to present this information 'in order'. This will be helpful in our deliberation.
So he would have been able to tell us where he got the story of a young and heavily pregnant Mary going walkabout all the way from Galilee to Jerusalem to see her cousin? Yet another complete fabrication to tie Jesus in with the Baptist. :shrug:

Luke 1:5; We are given the context of his Gospel; Luke states that 'in the days of Herod, the king of Judea.'
Luke 2:1-3; 'And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius [Greek for Quirinius] was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.'
And that, of course, was absolute junk..... true?
And people were not exprected to leave their homes and jobs and go trekking off to where their great great great grandaddies once lived ! :p
And Joseph was a Galilean in all probability, and fact that Luke needed to manipulate because otherwise Jesus would have been a more recent Jew (as most Galilean were).


Now you and I believe that Herod the Great, who is here mentioned as the king of Judea, died at Jericho in 4 B.C. So, Luke is clearly telling us about the events that preceded Herod's death.
To try and squeeze a census in to the three provinces at that time is just outright deception.

Ussher adds this:
6082. After Herod had ordered these things, he died on the fifth day after he had executed Antipater. He had held the kingdom for thirty-four years after having killed Antigonus, but thirty-seven years from the time that he was declared king by the Romans. [Josephus, Antiq. 1.17.c.8.s.1.(191) 8:459] He started to reign after the death of Antigonus in 37BC because 31 BC was the seventh year of his reign in which the battle of Actium was fought. [Josephus, Jewish War,1.1.c.19.s.2.(370) 2:173,175.] Hence 4BC. would be the last year of his thirty-four year reign. He died about 25 of November, that is, the 7th of the month of Chisleu, which was therefore accounted a joyful and a festival day, because on that day: 'Herod died, who hated all wise men.'
Herod could possibly have died in 2/1BC. It's possible, because Josephus gave fairly accurate descriptions of moon activity at the time and I have read that 2/1BC could fit more closely. You see? historianms need to be objective, rather than follow an agenda, like Usher. :shrug:

To demonstrate that Luke was aware that another census took place in A.D.6, ten years later, we have to turn to the book of Acts, also written by Luke. Here Luke states:[Acts 5:36,37.]
'For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.
After this rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.'

So, Luke knew about the taxing of A.D.6, and he also knew about another registration that took place under Herod, ten years earlier.
No! Luke knew of no other census that could have affected his nativity story. And, anyway, why you think that Rome would have required people to trekk to old ancestral homes when in fact they were taxed EXACTLY WHERE THEY WERE is a mistery.

In evidence that I provided in an earlier post , I quoted this:' in the year 1764 a fragment of a sepulchral inscription, now in the the Museum of the Vatican, was found in the Tiber. It states that the person, to whose memory it was dedicated, was Proconsul of Asia, and that he was TWICE governor of the imperial province of Syria and Phoenicia. Mommsen, Merivale, and other historical critics of the highest authority, hold that the person thus designated was Quirinius.'
Nope .... The record of Syrian Legates has already been shown to you, thev only gap being from 4BC to 1BC, and this happens to coincide with the possible gap in Herod's life from 4BC to 2/1 BC.

Now, Luke doesn't say that Quirinius ordered the census of 4BC, only that he was governor of Syria at the time of the registration. We know that Octavian, or Caesar Augustus, ordered that 'all the world should be taxed'.
We know that TWO attempts were made to take a tax census in Idumea, Judea and Samaria in 6AD. Caesar ordered them so that sense could be made of those provinces ONLY!) after Archeuas was deposed, having made a total mess of it all.

And why you think that Joseph would have left Galilee to take part in it is just head bangingly wonderful. He paid his taxes where he lived.

And here we can add a very significant piece of evidence to distinguish between the two registrations. When the Romans administered a registration they called on citizens to be registered in the place where he was a citizen. If it took place according to Jewish custom, it would have been in connection with the tribe and family (or, as Luke phrases it, according to 'the house and lineage'). This is why Joseph and Mary had to travel all the way from Nazareth to Bethlehem to be registered.
You think that Romans cared about Jewish customs?!! Rome even struck the head of Baal, graven images, and Caesars abbreviated name on to the Temple coins!
You've lost the plot.

The closer one looks at Luke's record, the more one can appreciate that it was undertaken with the greatest of care and attention. Let us also not forget that Luke was a disciple of Jesus Christ. The gift of Holy Spirit includes the power to prophesy.
That's just waffle. If you want to conjure up 'disciples'of Jesus from folks who never knew him then I can't help you.
If Luke had intimate knowledge of Jesus then he would not have needed to collect and copy the documents of others, he could have written the whole story without any plagiary.

Look, if you have Faith in all this then just say so and I can acknowledge your FAITH. But if you want to try and crank real history in to every word then you're going to have trouble.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
You can argue that if you want, but this has been decided well before you and by those above your pay grade
Words of Redemption by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein


For the same reason that I knock on the my kid's door and ask "are you in there?" after she runs up crying and I know she is in there. I want to be invited in because it shows that she is ready to talk.

So the
What? A comma?
First, here is the phrase in the Hebrew
וַיִּתֵּן֙ אֶֽת־הַקְּטֹ֔רֶת וַיְכַפֵּ֖ר עַל־הָעָֽם
notice the lack of a comma (also, notice the tipcha under vayechaper without the mercha)

Next, here is another translation (if you must use a translation)
"He put on the incense and made expiation for the people;"
So any conclusion you want to draw, inventing a blood component where the text doesn't have one based on the presence in one translation of a comma is fatally flawed by the lack of said comma in the source-Hebrew or in other English translations.


The text never says that blood is shed. It says that the priest makes atonement based on the offering of fine flour. That's it. You want to introduce an idea of blood which is conspicuously absent. It simply isn't there.

Verse 12 begins the process:
He shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall scoop out of it a handful as a token portion of it and turn it into smoke on the altar, with the LORD’s offerings by fire; it is a sin offering.

and then verse 13
Thus the priest shall make expiation on his behalf for whichever of these sins he is guilty, and he shall be forgiven. It shall belong to the priest, like the meal offering.

Of course, it would be easier to explain this in the Hebrew.

This is an argument about whether or not blood needs to be shed for the remission of sins.

In Hebrews 9:22, Paul says, 'And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.'

If we then look at Leviticus 17:11 we read this: '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.'

The same passage in the JPS reads, 'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have assigned it to you for making expiation for your lives upon the altar; it is the blood, as life, that effects expiation.'

In Numbers 16 we read about the murmurings of the sons of Levi, and then the whole congregation, against Moses and Aaron. The Lord's response is to send a plague, which is only prevented when Moses tells Aaron to 'go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them;'

In the words of the JPS,[Numbers 17:12],'Aaron took it, as Moses had ordered, and ran to the midst of the congregation, where the plague had begun among the people. He put on the incense and made expiation for the people;'

Surely, Rosends, this cannot be clearer! You cannot claim that the burning of incense was an expiation for sin when Leviticus clearly states that only blood effects expiation!

I have intentionally used the JPS translation, from the Hebrew Masoretic text, to avoid any further muddying of the waters. If you have an issue with the Hebrew translation then you must take it up with the translators!
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
In Hebrews 9:22, Paul says, 'And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.'
You continue to show that you've not understood where Paul is coming from and cannot derive his results like he does. Hebrews 9:22 is clearly talking about the implements of the tabernacle which must be touched by blood regularly. That's true they do. Its got nothing to do with your arguing that blood must be shed for an individual's sins which is untrue. At least 3 people have pointed out obvious and basic facts in the law -- that only accidental sins are atoned for and things that you are drawn into against your will, that there are atonement offerings of grain, that Jesus could not be truly sacrificed, eaten or his blood drunk. In fact you continue to quote Paul instead of deriving his results, and therefore you don't know what he is talking about.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
In Hebrews 9:22, Paul says, 'And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.'
OK, but who cares. We are talking about Judaism.
If we then look at Leviticus 17:11 we read this: '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.'
In the discussion of what one may not eat, one is forbidden to eat blood. This section is not about sacrifices but about why blood can't be eaten.

which is only prevented when Moses tells Aaron to 'go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them;'
Yup -- and the method listed is through the burning of incense. Inventing anything else is dishonest. "placed the incense and provided atonement."
Surely, Rosends, this cannot be clearer! You cannot claim that the burning of incense was an expiation for sin when Leviticus clearly states that only blood effects expaition!
So your question is "if the section about eating forbids blood because blood can provide atonement, why can atonement be said to happen without blood?"

There are a few reasons:

1. Numbers 15 makes it clear that any sacrificial system only atones for unintentional sins (check 15:30 and Lev 4:27 for proof). Therefore, since the behavior of the people was intentional, no blood COULD have atoned.

2. The text explicitly says that in cases of certain sins, a poor man can offer flour if he can't afford an animal (Lev 5:11). No blood. The text gives an alternative and does not say that the priest adds anything in beyond what the person gives as his offering.

3. When Miriam slandered Moses, he prayed for her and she was forgiven. No sacrifice at all. The text requires a variety of behaviors (repayment plus a penalty, separate fines, asking forgiveness) in different cases. If blood provided atonement, none of this would exist.

Additionally, post the 5 books, there is explicit text that says that prayers are a method (in I Kings 8) and that they replace sacrifices (it is in Hoshea) so there would not be any need for blood well before the beginning of the common era.

The problem isn't with the translations, but with the logic which you decide must apply as you interpolate details that support your worldview.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
A very egocentric view of ancient texts that are edited, redacted and compiled by unknown authors with poor provenance, Actually compiled and edited from older Canaanite, Ugarite, Babylonian and Sumerian cuneiform texts..
Some legends, such as the creation story or the flood, evolved from earlier sumerian versions. However, once in text form, they remained Hebrew stories. The only editing, redacting, and compilation after that time was done be Jews.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
These are not examples of atonement without blood!

Numbers 16:47,48: 'And Aaron took as Moses commanded, and ran into the midst of the congregation; and, behold, the plague was begun among the people: and he put on incense, and made an atonement for the people.
And he stood between the dead and the living; and the plague was stayed.'

You'll notice that a comma exists between 'he put on incense' and the statement 'and made an atonement for the people.' The atonement involves the shedding of blood.

In Leviticus 5:11 a poor man's offering can be 'the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering'. But the passage does not stop there; you've failed to read verse 13, where it adds, 'And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned'.
So blood is shed on the poor man's behalf by the priest!
You are adding to the text things that clearly aren't there. Sorry but in neither of these passages is there any sacrificing of animals.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Some legends, such as the creation story or the flood, evolved from earlier sumerian versions. However, once in text form, they remained Hebrew stories. The only editing, redacting, and compilation after that time was done be Jews.

Does not resolve the problems with your claims far exceed the lack of provenance of the text as Jewish text by Jewish authors. It is not just the creation and flood stories. The vocabulary of the Pentateuch and the Psalms has distinctive Canaanite and Ugarit roots.

You claims are just as shaky as any other ancient religion. Your claim of written by Jews for Jews does not hold up to scrutiny, just as the claims of first person author do not hold up for Christians claims of the NT..
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Some legends, such as the creation story or the flood, evolved from earlier sumerian versions. However, once in text form, they remained Hebrew stories. The only editing, redacting, and compilation after that time was done be Jews.

The following is an interesting website with a detailed description of the roots of much of the Hebrew scripture and Ugarit texts.

From: Quartz Hill School of Theology
3. From the Literature of Ugarit to the Literature of the Bible.

The style of writing discovered at Ugarit is known as alphabetic cuneiform. This is a unique blending of an alphabetic script (like Hebrew) and cuneiform (like Akkadian); thus it is a unique blending of two styles of writing. Most likely it came into being as cuneiform was passing from the scene and alphabetic scripts were making their rise. Ugaritic is thus a bridge from one to the other and very important in itself for the development of both.

One of the most, if perhaps not the most, important aspect of Ugaritic studies is the assistance it gives in correctly translating difficult Hebrew words and passages in the Old Testament. As a language develops the meaning of words changes or their meaning is lost altogether. This is also true of the Biblical text. But after the discovery of the Ugaritic texts we gained new information concerning the meaning of archaic words in the Hebrew text.

One example of this is found in Proverbs 26:23. In the Hebrew text כֶּ֣סֶף סִ֭יגִים "silver lips" is divided just as it is here. This has caused commentators quite a bit of confusion over the centuries, for what does "silver lips" mean? The discovery of the Ugaritic texts has helped us to understand that the word was divided incorrectly by the Hebrew scribe (who was as unfamiliar as we are with what the words were supposed to mean). Instead of the two words above, the Ugaritic texts lead us to divide the two words as כספסיגים which means "like silver". This makes eminently more sense in context than the word mistakenly divided by the Hebrew scribe who was unfamiliar with the second word; so he divided into two words which he did know even though it made no sense.

Another example occurs in Ps 89:20. Here the word עָזַר is usually translated "help" but the Ugaritic word gzr means "young man" and if Psalm 89:20 is translated this way it is clearly more meaningful.

Besides single words being illuminated by the Ugaritic texts, entire ideas or complexes of ideas have parallels in the literature. For example, in Proverbs 9:1-18 wisdom and folly are personified as women. This means that when the Hebrew wisdom teacher instructed his students on these matters, he was drawing on material that was commonly known in the Canaanite environment (for Ugarit was Canaanite). In point of fact, KTU 1,7 VI 2-45 is nearly identical to Proverbs 9:1ff. (The abbreviation KTU stands for Keilalphabetische Texte aus Ugarit , the standard collection of this material. The numbers are what we might call the chapter and verse). KTU 1.114:2-4 says:

hklh. sh. lqs. ilm. tlhmn
ilm w tstn. tstnyn d sb
trt. d. skr. y .db .yrh

Eat, o Gods, and drink,
drink wine till you are sated,

Which is very similar to Proverbs 9:5;

Come, eat of my food and drink wine that I have mixed .

Ugaritic poetry is very similar to Biblical poetry and is therefore very useful in interpreting difficult poetic texts. In fact, Ugaritic literature (besides lists and the like) is composed completely in poetic metre. Biblical poetry follows Ugaritc poetry in form and function. There is parallelism, qinah metre, bi and tri colas, and all of the poetic tools found in the Bible are found at Ugarit. In short the Ugaritic materials have a great deal to contribute to our understanding of the Biblical materials; especially since they predate any of the Biblical texts.

4. The Ugaritic Pantheon.

The prophets of the Old Testament rail against Baal, Asherah and various other gods on nearly every page. The reason for this is simple to understand; the people of Israel worshipped these gods along with, and sometimes instead of, Yahweh, the God of Israel. This Biblical denunciation of these Canaanite gods received a fresh face when the Ugaritic texts were discovered, for at Ugarit these were the very gods that were worshipped.

El was the chief god at Ugarit. Yet El is also the name of God used in many of the Psalms for Yahweh; or at least that has been the presupposition among pious Christians. Yet when one reads these Psalms and the Ugaritic texts one sees that the very attributes for which Yahweh is acclaimed are the same for which El is acclaimed. In fact, these Psalms were most likely originally Ugaritic or Canaanite hymns to El which were simply adopted by Israel, much like the American National Anthem was set to a beer hall tune by Francis Scott Key. El is called the father of men, creator, and creator of the creation. These attributes are also granted Yahweh by the Old Testament.

For instances, read KTU 1. 2 I 13-32 and compare it to many of the Psalms. Also, read Ps 82:1, 89:6-8!).

In 1 Kings 22:19-22 we read of Yahweh meeting with his heavenly council. This is the very description of heaven which one finds in the Ugaritic texts. For in those texts the sons of god are the sons of El.

Other deities worshipped at Ugarit were El Shaddai, El Elyon, and El Berith. All of these names are applied to Yahweh by the writers of the Old Testament. What this means is that the Hebrew theologians adopted the titles of the Canaanite gods and attributed them to Yahweh in an effort to eliminate them. If Yahweh is all of these there is no need for the Canaanite gods to exist! This process is known as assimilation.

Besides the chief god at Ugarit there were also lesser gods, demons, and goddesses. The most important of these lesser gods were Baal (familiar to all readers of the Bible), Asherah (also familiar to readers of the Bible), Yam (the god of the sea) and Mot (the god of death). What is of great interest here is that Yam is the Hebrew word for sea and Mot is the Hebrew word for death! Is this because the Hebrews also adopted these Canaanite ideas as well? Most likely they did.

One of the most interesting of these lesser deities, Asherah, plays a very important role in the Old Testament. There she is called the wife of Baal; but she is also known as the consort of Yahweh! That is, among some Yahwists, Ahserah is Yahweh s female counterpart! Inscriptions found at Kuntillet Ajrud (dated between 850 and 750 BCE) say:

I bless you through Yahweh of Samaria,
and through his Asherah!

And at El Qom (from the same period) this inscription:

Uriyahu, the king, has written this.
Blessed be Uriyahu through Yahweh,
and his enemies have been conquered
through Yahweh's Asherah.

That Yahwists worshipped Asherah until the 3rd century before Christ is well known from the Elephantine Papyri. Thus, for many in ancient Israel, Yahweh, like Baal, had a consort. Although condemned by the prophets, this aspect of the popular religion of Israel was difficult to overcome and indeed among many was never overcome.

As had already been mentioned, one of the more important lesser deities at Ugarit was Baal. Baal is described as the rider on the clouds in KTU 1.3 II 40. Interestingly enough, this description is also used of Yahweh in Psalm 68:5.

In the Old Testament Baal is named 58 times in the singular and 18 times in the plural. The prophets protested constantly against the love affair the Israelites had with Baal (cf. Hosea 2:19, for example). The reason Israel was so attracted to Baal was that, first of all, some Israelites viewed Yahweh as a God of the desert and so when they arrived in Canaan they thought it only proper to adopt Baal, the god of fertility. As the old saying goes, whose land, his god. For these Israelites Yahweh was useful in the desert but not much help in the land.

There is one Ugaritic text which seems to indicate that among the inhabitants of Ugarit, Yahweh was viewed as another son of El. KTU 1.1 IV 14 says:

sm . bny . yw . ilt
The name of the son of god, Yahweh.

This text seems to show that Yahweh was known at Ugarit, though not as the Lord but as one of the many sons of El.

Among the other gods worshipped at Ugarit there are Dagon, Tirosch, Horon, Nahar, Resheph, Kotar Hosis, Shachar (who is the equivalent of Satan), and Shalem. The folks at Ugarit were also plagued by a host of demons and lesser gods. The people at Ugarit saw the desert as the place which was most inhabited by demons (and they were like the Israelites in this belief). KTU 1.102:15-28 is a list of these demons.

One of the most famous of the lesser deities at Ugarit was a chap named Dan il. There is little doubt that this figure corresponds to the Biblical Daniel; while predating him by several centuries. This has led many Old Testament scholars to suppose that the Canonical prophet was modeled on him. His story is found in KTU 1.17 - 1.19.

Another creature which has ties to the Old Testament is Leviathan. Isaiah 27:1 and KTU 1.5 I 1-2 describe this beast. Also see Ps 74:13-14 and 104:26.

There is more that I may post that well documents the origin of the Hebrew scripture, language and culture and the intimate relationship and origins of Judaism with Ugarit culture and language.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
You continue to show that you've not understood where Paul is coming from and cannot derive his results like he does. Hebrews 9:22 is clearly talking about the implements of the tabernacle which must be touched by blood regularly. That's true they do. Its got nothing to do with your arguing that blood must be shed for an individual's sins which is untrue. At least 3 people have pointed out obvious and basic facts in the law -- that only accidental sins are atoned for and things that you are drawn into against your will, that there are atonement offerings of grain, that Jesus could not be truly sacrificed, eaten or his blood drunk. In fact you continue to quote Paul instead of deriving his results, and therefore you don't know what he is talking about.

Anyone with a Bible can look at the passage, Hebrews 9:18-28.
And you're right, verse 22 does refer to the tabernacle and the vessels of the ministry (symbolic of Christ and his people) but it clearly states that 'without shedding of blood is no remission'.

Now, Brickjectivity, you go ahead and tell everyone what cannot be forgiven without the shedding of blood. What is it?
 
Top