"There is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood."

[Dubio]

This is according to Hebrews 9:22 which Conservative Christians point to as a reason Jesus had to die on the cross.

But there was plenty of forgiveness going on in the OT without the shedding of blood. People obtained forgiveness with a food offering. During the Exodus, God forgave the Israelites numerous times without asking for a sacrifice.

In the OT, animal sacrifice was primarily for unintentional sins and special situations such as defiling the temple. If animal sacrifice was primarily for unintentional sins, I don't how God would go from there to Jesus had to shed his blood for the sins of the world.

 

[Tumah]

We tried this logic.
Ultimately, we shouldn't expect them to accept a line of reasoning that directly contradicts the entire basis for their religion. So life goes on.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is according to Hebrews 9:22 which Conservative Christians point to as a reason Jesus had to die on the cross.

But there was plenty of forgiveness going on in the OT without the shedding of blood. People obtained forgiveness with a food offering. During the Exodus, God forgave the Israelites numerous times without asking for a sacrifice.

In the OT, animal sacrifice was primarily for unintentional sins and special situations such as defiling the temple. If animal sacrifice was primarily for unintentional sins, I don't how God would go from there to Jesus had to shed his blood for the sins of the world.

I see strong parallels between the Jesus sacrifice story and the story of David's son in 2 Samuel 12: even though God had forgiven David's sin, he effectively tortures David's newborn son to death as a "consequence" of David's transgressions.

Apparently, even in the OT, sometimes God demanded blood - innocent human blood - as some sort of payment for sin.

 

[Sleeppy]

Hebrews 9
For not into holy places made with hands did the Christ enter -- figures of the true -- but into the heaven itself, now to be manifested in the presence of God for us; nor that he may many times offer himself, even as the chief priest doth enter into the holy places every year with blood of others; since it had behoved him many times to suffer from the foundation of the world, but now once, at the full end of the ages, for putting away of sin through his sacrifice, he hath been manifested; and as it is laid up to men once to die, and after this -- judgment, so also the Christ, once having been offered to bear the sins of many, a second time, apart from a sin-offering, shall appear, to those waiting for him -- to salvation!

 

[metis]

We tried this logic.
Ultimately, we shouldn't expect them to accept a line of reasoning that directly contradicts the entire basis for their religion. So life goes on.

But I feel that there's a good chance that this concept may have been a theological construct that wasn't meant to be taken literally but later was by those unfamiliar with that way of the early Jewish writing style. I think Paul was likely drawing a comparison with Jesus' death and the sin offerings at the Temple but didn't mean for it to be taken literally.

 

[Desert Snake]

But I feel that there's a good chance that this concept may have been a theological construct that wasn't meant to be taken literally but later was by those unfamiliar with that way of the early Jewish writing style. I think Paul was likely drawing a comparison with Jesus' death and the sin offerings at the Temple but didn't mean for it to be taken literally.

Perhaps, that's how I would read it as well, but that's anecdotal, so, I'm not entirely sure how it was meant originally.

 

[Tumah]

But I feel that there's a good chance that this concept may have been a theological construct that wasn't meant to be taken literally but later was by those unfamiliar with that way of the early Jewish writing style. I think Paul was likely drawing a comparison with Jesus' death and the sin offerings at the Temple but didn't mean for it to be taken literally.

I don't really know much about how it is actually portrayed in the NT. Only what Christians seem to take it for.
But I wonder: who was Paul writing to? The unlearned Jew who might have been familiar with Temple sacrifice, but not necessarily with Scriptures? Or the learned Jew who would have immediately questioned the practical use of such a comparison?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't really know much about how it is actually portrayed in the NT. Only what Christians seem to take it for.
But I wonder: who was Paul writing to? The unlearned Jew who might have been familiar with Temple sacrifice, but not necessarily with Scriptures? Or the learned Jew who would have immediately questioned the practical use of such a comparison?

FWIW: current scholarly consensus is that Paul *didn't* write Hebrews. The author doesn't identify himself and the style is quite different from the "confirmed" Pauline epistles.

 

[Tumah]

FWIW: current scholarly consensus is that Paul *didn't* write Hebrews. The author doesn't identify himself and the style is quite different from the "confirmed" Pauline epistles.

Oh are we talking about Hebrews? I really don't know much about the NT. I still get confused knowing that there are four books and five names: Mark, Matthew, Paul, John and Luke.

 

[metis]

I don't really know much about how it is actually portrayed in the NT. Only what Christians seem to take it for.
But I wonder: who was Paul writing to? The unlearned Jew who might have been familiar with Temple sacrifice, but not necessarily with Scriptures? Or the learned Jew who would have immediately questioned the practical use of such a comparison?

Paul was writing mainly to fellow disciples of "the Way" (the early church), telling them what to and what not to do, along with his take on various theological matters.

Even though I obviously disagree with Paul on so many things, he is both intelligent and articulate, no doubt. To me, he's the "brains" of the early church, which is why his writings were passed around to the various churches in the Christian diaspora. His take on Jesus and what he felt Jesus meant is truly imaginative and creative, but probably went well beyond anything that Jesus said of himself. The irony is that it took a better understanding of traditional Jewish and Greek writing styles for me to better appreciate what I think he was saying and how it got blown out of proportion by those who weren't familiar with either.

I gotta go, so sorry to cut this short.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh are we talking about Hebrews? I really don't know much about the NT. I still get confused knowing that there are four books and five names: Mark, Matthew, Paul, John and Luke.

The four gospels are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The New Testament also includes the Acts of the Apostles (normally shortened to "Acts" and written anonymously, though traditionally believed to be by Luke), the Revelation of John (generally believed to be a different John than the one with the gospel), and many epistles. Paul is the purported author of most - but not all - of the epistles. Acts and some of the non-Pauline epistles discuss Paul and his purported deeds.

Some of the epistles that purport to be from Paul are now generally considered to be written by other people posing as Paul. There are also anonymous epistles (e.g. Hebrews) that have traditionally been attributed to a particular author but modern consensus disagrees.

 

[Tumah]

The four gospels are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The New Testament also includes the Acts of the Apostles (normally shortened to "Acts" and written anonymously, though traditionally believed to be by Luke), the Revelation of John (generally believed to be a different John than the one with the gospel), and many epistles. Paul is the purported author of most - but not all - of the epistles. Acts and some of the non-Pauline epistles discuss Paul and his purported deeds.

Some of the epistles that purport to be from Paul are now generally considered to be written by other people posing as Paul. There are also anonymous epistles (e.g. Hebrews) that have traditionally been attributed to a particular author but modern consensus disagrees.

Wellll, that doesn't complicate it at all.

On a more serious note. I thought Paul was a major Christian figure. His books didn't even make it into the gospel?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wellll, that doesn't complicate it at all.

On a more serious note. I thought Paul was a major Christian figure. His books didn't even make it into the gospel?

The Gospel is the story of the life of Jesus. Paul didn't meet Jesus in person. Jesus supposedly appeared to Paul in a vision as he was travelling along the road to Damascus (after the crucifixion and resurrection), which was the point when Paul converted to Christianity.

BTW: this is why you'll sometimes hear Christians or people familiar with Christianity call a profound, sudden change in belief or perspective a "Damascus Road" experience.

 

[arcanum]

Oh are we talking about Hebrews? I really don't know much about the NT. I still get confused knowing that there are four books and five names: Mark, Matthew, Paul, John and Luke.

And here I thought it was John, Paul, George , and Ringo all this time

 

[Sunstone]

And here I thought it was John, Paul, George , and Ringo all this time

No, that was the more popular group.

 

[CMike]

This is according to Hebrews 9:22 which Conservative Christians point to as a reason Jesus had to die on the cross.

But there was plenty of forgiveness going on in the OT without the shedding of blood. People obtained forgiveness with a food offering. During the Exodus, God forgave the Israelites numerous times without asking for a sacrifice.

In the OT, animal sacrifice was primarily for unintentional sins and special situations such as defiling the temple. If animal sacrifice was primarily for unintentional sins, I don't how God would go from there to Jesus had to shed his blood for the sins of the world.

I think it makes no sense at all.

Forgiveness was mainly achieved via repentance:

 

[Desert Snake]

I think it makes no sense at all.

Forgiveness was mainly achieved via repentance:

I think forgiveness is getting mixed up with goat sacrifices etc.

 

[psychoslice]

For me personally its all a metaphor, so there is no blood or actual blood needing to be shed.

 

[Thief]

This is according to Hebrews 9:22 which Conservative Christians point to as a reason Jesus had to die on the cross.

But there was plenty of forgiveness going on in the OT without the shedding of blood. People obtained forgiveness with a food offering. During the Exodus, God forgave the Israelites numerous times without asking for a sacrifice.

In the OT, animal sacrifice was primarily for unintentional sins and special situations such as defiling the temple. If animal sacrifice was primarily for unintentional sins, I don't how God would go from there to Jesus had to shed his blood for the sins of the world.

It's parallel thinking.
The technique is easiest to see in the parables the Carpenter taught.
He tells a scenario and you fill in the points of connection.
At the end of the story you can see the parallel.

Unfortunately the technique was applied directly to Him.
He must have said something about the Lamb of God.
And the followers that came after used the label on Him.

So there is some parallel.

But I don't believe the death of another relieves me of what I have said or done.
Is it not more common to believe we ARE held to our deeds?

I don't think the Carpenter believed in sacrifice either.
He set loose the birds held in the Temple.
I see this as strong indication.....no blood for sin.
Not even a little bit.

 

[arcanum]

Actually all three Abrahamic faiths, if we can group them as such, and many others have all have all understood or made use of blood sacrifice as a sort of atonement for sins or for some other religious purpose. This is a very ancient concept and probably every religion past or present has made use of animal or even human sacrifice for various religious purposes. Certainly in the second temple period animal sacrifice for atonement was a common practice. Is this really in dispute?