- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Goll
so Paul is a dreamer he invented this ,so he was not inspired,so he as told lies,so we should dismiss all of his books ,in which benefit ? to become all under the Jewish law??
which wise Jewish sage after Paul came to that conclusion???
please clarify
Quote (gollamudi @ Feb. 13 2010,09:52) Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 12 2010,22:08) Here is a better example: Exodus 32:30-33(NIV)
The next day Moses said to the people, “You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.”
So Moses went back to the LORD and said, “Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written.”
The LORD replied to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. Now go, lead the people to the place I spoke of, and my angel will go before you. However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin.”
Hi brother Kerwin,
It doesn't mean Moses was to die for the sins of Israelites. He told them that he would go to God and confess their sins before the LORD. I don't think he was intended any human sacrifice there.peace to you
Adam
Put what Moses did together with Psalms 40:6-8 and the fact the judge Samson sacrificed himself in his battle against God's enemies.Who do you think God's real enemies are?
I assure you it is not the Philistines who were but the enemies of God's people and so served the evil one.
Exodus 29:36(NIV) reads:
Quote Sacrifice a bull each day as a sin offering to make atonement. Purify the altar by making atonement for it, and anoint it to consecrate it.
Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 13 2010,16:55) Quote (gollamudi @ Feb. 13 2010,09:52) Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 12 2010,22:08) Here is a better example: Exodus 32:30-33(NIV)
The next day Moses said to the people, “You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.”
So Moses went back to the LORD and said, “Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written.”
The LORD replied to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. Now go, lead the people to the place I spoke of, and my angel will go before you. However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin.”
Hi brother Kerwin,
It doesn't mean Moses was to die for the sins of Israelites. He told them that he would go to God and confess their sins before the LORD. I don't think he was intended any human sacrifice there.peace to you
Adam
Put what Moses did together with Psalms 40:6-8 and the fact the judge Samson sacrificed himself in his battle against God's enemies.Who do you think God's real enemies are?
I assure you it is not the Philistines who were but the enemies of God's people and so served the evil one.
Exodus 29:36(NIV) reads:
Quote Sacrifice a bull each day as a sin offering to make atonement. Purify the altar by making atonement for it, and anoint it to consecrate it.
kerwinYou obviously don't understand what sin is, and what is required to rectify it.
You just look at scriptures that say, God does not want sacrifices; well that is correct, if no one would sin, then there would be no need for sacrifices.
Have forgotten, over looked, or just plain ignored the fact that it was God who instituted the sacrifices, and why.
Never did God ask for human sacrifice.Georg
George,
I believe you misunderstanding me. I am attempting to point out to Gollamundi that Jesus sacrificed himself to destroy God's enemies which is sin. In doing so he committed an act of mercy not an act of human sacrifice. That is the point that Psalms 40 makes.
God also demanded a sacrifice of a bull for atonement and yet stated it was not sacrifice he desired but mercy. How is sacrificing a bull to atone for sin an act of mercy?
Atone means to be reconciled or to make peace with.
kerwin
Why then, did God institute the animal sacrifices in the old testament?
Read the book of Leviticus.Georg
Quote (Elizabeth @ Feb. 13 2010,18:12) kerwin Why then, did God institute the animal sacrifices in the old testament?
Read the book of Leviticus.Georg
Offhand, I would say to let the Hebrew people know that sin had a cost and so turn the hearts of the the parents to the children and vise versa. The problem arose when some decided to pay that cost so they justify their sins. That was not his intent.Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 13 2010,16:55) Quote (gollamudi @ Feb. 13 2010,09:52) Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 12 2010,22:08) Here is a better example: Exodus 32:30-33(NIV)
The next day Moses said to the people, “You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.”
So Moses went back to the LORD and said, “Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written.”
The LORD replied to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. Now go, lead the people to the place I spoke of, and my angel will go before you. However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin.”
Hi brother Kerwin,
It doesn't mean Moses was to die for the sins of Israelites. He told them that he would go to God and confess their sins before the LORD. I don't think he was intended any human sacrifice there.peace to you
Adam
Put what Moses did together with Psalms 40:6-8 and the fact the judge Samson sacrificed himself in his battle against God's enemies.Who do you think God's real enemies are?
I assure you it is not the Philistines who were but the enemies of God's people and so served the evil one.
Exodus 29:36(NIV) reads:
Quote Sacrifice a bull each day as a sin offering to make atonement. Purify the altar by making atonement for it, and anoint it to consecrate it.
Hi brother Kerwin, your logic of human sacrifice for sin atonement is very strange to Hebrew scriptures. Samson death never meant for any atonement of sins of Israel. Your way of expressing sin as an enemy of God is also christian in nature. Famous Rudolf Bultmann had rightly commented that New Testament consists of lot of mythology like heavenly redeemer comes in disguise of a human and offer himself as sacrifice to defeat the enemies of God. I always wonder for whom this ransom paid, to God or satan? New Testament contains lot of duality in its definition of God and evil. satan is magnified as another god opposite to God. Jews never believed in this another god who is against God.Please leave your preconceived ideas and look for truth from otherside. There are lot of holes in our N.T
Peace to you
AdamPlease see this article: Jesus was not a sacrifice for sins
Jesus is my Saviour. He even saved me physically from armed robbers and healed me miraculously from bullet wounds. But I know from Jesus himself that he is not responsible for atoning for my sins.
That responsibility is mine and mine alone.
I often like to ask fellow Christians: Are your sins forgiven or are they paid for? Did Jesus die for your sins or did you repent? Some Christians say it is both, but it cannot be. If your sins are forgiven, nobody needs to pay for them.
If your sins are paid for, then you don't need to be forgiven. If I owe a man one thousand naira and Jesus pays my debt, then I was not forgiven the debt.
If Jesus died for our sins then God never forgave anyone.
That is not true. Jesus teaches about repentance and the forgiveness of sins; but Paul talks about blood payment for sins. Whose report are you going to believe?
Jesus is not a Passover Lamb Paul says “Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us” (1 Cor 5:7).
However, the Passover lamb is not a sacrifice for sins. It was killed and eaten as an act of defiance because the lamb was sacred in Egypt (Exo 8:26). Paul says Jesus told his disciples at the last Passover feast: “Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you” (1 Cor 11:24). But Paul was not even there. In actual fact, Jesus' bones were not broken (Jn 19:36).
Paul also claims Jesus was “made sin” for our redemption: “For he made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor 5:21). But the sin-offering is not made sin: it is made holy (Lev 6:24-27). For Jesus to be a sin-offering, he must be holy to God.
But if, according to Paul, he was made sin and even cursed, then he could not have been an acceptable sacrifice.
Moreover, the law requires that the atoning sacrifice be without physical defects or blemishes (Lev 4:3/Lev 22:22). But Jesus was beaten, whipped, and dragged on the ground before being crucified. Thereby, his body was bruised, cut and blemished, making him an unacceptable sacrifice.
No vicarious atonement In any case, God does not accept vicarious atonement. A person cannot atone for the sins of someone else; he can only atone for his own sins. Thus, God rejected Moses' offer to be punished for the sins of the children of Israel. He said to him: “Whoever has sinned against me, I will blot him out of my book (Exo 32:31-33).
This principle is stated again and again in the bible: “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall the children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deut 24:16).
Therefore, Jesus cannot be put to death for the sins of others.
A moral debt owed by one person cannot be redeemed by someone else. A moral debt involves guilt, but guilt cannot be transferred. If a man offends me, another man cannot repent for him. The person who displays the remorse must be the same person who owes it. Therefore, there is no moral value to punishment inflicted, not on the person who committed the offence, but on Jesus who has nothing to do with the crime.
This shows that Jesus blood cannot be atonement for sins. It is there in black and white in the bible:
“Atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it” (Num 35:33).
Sacrifices can only atone for sins committed prior to the offering of the sacrifice. No sacrifice could atone for sins committed after the sacrifice was offered. So even if it were true that Jesus atoned for the sins of mankind, he could only have atoned for sins committed before his crucifixion and not for any sins committed afterwards by people born after his death.
God forbids human sacrifice Finally, Jesus cannot be a sacrifice for sins because the law forbids human sacrifice and God strictly prohibits it: “They have built high altars to Baal, and there they burn their sons in sacrifice– a thing I never commanded them nor even thought of” (Jer 19:5). Even before the Law of Moses was given, God prevented Abraham from sacrificing his son Isaac, showing he does not require human sacrifices.
Indeed, God does not require any kind of sacrifice. He says so again and again: “I desire mercy and not sacrifice” (Hos 6:6; Mt 9:13).
hi goll
there is no holes,in the new testament ,only in your understanding,
it is to the Jews that it says;Isa 42:18 “Hear, you deaf;
look, you blind, and see!
Isa 42:20 You have seen many things, but have paid no attention;
your ears are open, but you hear nothing.”Jer 5:21 Hear this, you foolish and senseless people,
who have eyes but do not see,
who have ears but do not hear:
Jer 6:10 To whom can I speak and give warning?
Who will listen to me?
Their ears are closed
so they cannot hear.
The word of the LORD is offensive to them;
they find no pleasure in it.
Jer 6:18 Therefore hear, O nations;
observe, O witnesses,
what will happen to them.
Jer 6:19 Hear, O earth:this is not sayed by gentiles or the NT
THE MYTH OF INEFFECTIVE SACRIFICES
Shmuel SilbermanMissionaries present a contradictory message about blood sacrifice. On the one hand, they insist that only blood sacrifice- and nothing else-atones. At the same time, they maintain that the blood sacrifices of the Temple actually did not atone, even though Scripture says they do. This hodgepodge is not the result of clear thinking but rather the need to legitimize Jesus.
Leviticus 4 speaks of bringing sin offerings to the Temple. 4:21 reads, “the priest shall make atonement for them; it shall be forgiven to them.” Many similar verses exist. Thus Scripture affirms that sacrifices do in fact atone.
Missionaries claim to know better than Leviticus. They quote from the New Testament, “But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin (Hebrews 10:3-4).”
This puts missionaries in an odd position, for they regard blood very highly- actually indispensable. “In fact the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no atonement (Hebrews 9:22).”
If Hebrews 9:22 means there is no other way of atonement in the Bible, it is simply false. There is atonement through repentance (II Samuel 12:13-14, Jonah 3:10, Lev. 26:40-42, Ezek. 18:21-32, 33:11-16), kindness (Prov. 16:6, Daniel 4:24), prayer (Hos. 14:2-3,I Kings 8:46-50, Daniel 9:19), removal of idolatry (Is. 27:9), punishment (Is. 40:1, Lam. 4:22), death (Is. 22:14), flour offerings (Lev. 5:11-13), money (Ex. 30:15), jewelry (Num. 31:50), and incense (Num. 17:11-12).
The missionary claim that these other sources of atonement were effective when combined with blood sacrifices is also incorrect. Several of the sources cited above speak of the Babylonian captivity when there were no sacrifices. Others, such as Isaiah 27:9, refer to the second exile. Even those verses which apply to the Temple period are independent of blood sacrifice.
Since the doctrine of 'no atonement without blood' is easily disproven, the missionaries' next move is to say that Hebrews 9:22 is talking about Jesus' blood alone. It is not a statement about sacrifices. This view is problematic:
1. Hebrews 9:22 is making a general statement which is then applied to Jesus specifically. Without the premise that atonement requires blood, no one can need possibly Jesus' blood.
2. Hebrews 9:22 is understood by Christians as a paraphrase of Leviticus 17:11 which says, “the atonement is in the blood.” Leviticus 17:11 is speaking of a prohibition of eating animal blood, and is certainly not a reference to Jesus alone.
If a general statement that atonement must involve blood is false, and if Hebrews 9:22 is not limited to Jesus, why does anyone need the blood of Jesus? At this point missionaries seize on passages which downplay the sacrifices. Those verses supposedly prove that the Temple sacrifices were not really effective; a mere shadow of Jesus' crucifixion. Let us examine those passages.
“Why do I need your many sacrifices, says G-d. I am sated with burnt offerings and rams and the fat of fatlings; the blood of bulls, sheep and goats I do not desire (Isaiah 1:11).”
This verse read in isolation seems to say G-d rejects blood sacrifice. However, if we look at verses 16-17, we get the true intent: “Wash and purify yourselves, remove the evil of your deeds before My eyes; stop doing evil. Learn to do good, seek justice, vindicate the victim, grant justice to the orphan, plead the grievance of the widow.” Clearly G-d does not reject sacrifices in general. He merely rejects them when they are not joined with repentance.
“You do not desire a feast offering, or I would give it, a burnt offering You do not want (Psalms 51:18).” These are King David's words after his indiscretion with Bath-sheva. Missionaries claim that David expresses the inadequacy of the sacrifical system. This is totally wrong. The reason David cannot bring a sacrifice is because there is no sacrifice for this particular sin. Personal sin offerings are brought only for unintentional sins and a few intentional ones (Leviticus 4, 5).
If David cannot bring a sacrifice, what is he to do? He tells us: “The sacrifices of G-d are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart You will not despise, G-d (51:19).”
That is not all. 51:20 reads, “Do good in Your favor to Zion; build the walls of Jerusalem. Then You will desire the offerings of righteousness, burnt offerings and whole offering, then the bulls will go up on Your altar.” Does David sound like a man anticipating Jesus as a replacement for sacrifices?!
Far from establishing that atonement is only through blood (the New Testament view), David teaches that repentance alone can atone for sin. This is indicated in II Samuel 12:13 after David confesses that same sin. “Nathan said to David, 'also G-d has removed your sin; you shall not die'.” Nathan tells David he is forgiven immediately, without a sacrifice.
“I did not speak with your forefathers or command them, on the day I took them out of the land of Egypt, regarding burnt and feast offerings. Rather, I commanded them only regarding this thing, saying: listen to My voice, that I will be to you a G-d, and you will be to Me a people. You will go in the entire way that I command you, so it will be good for you (Jeremiah 7:22-23).”
This passage obviously cannot be taken literally. Since G-d in fact commanded sacrifices, Jeremiah cannot deny that. “Listen to My voice” teaches us two lessons. Sacrifices must be accompanied by repentance, as indicated in Isaiah 1. Also, it is obviously preferable if the nation keeps more of G-d's laws and are not liable to bring numerous sacrifices.
This preference is reflected elsewhere in the Bible: “Does G-d desire burnt offerings and feast offerings like obedience to the voice of G-d? Behold obedience is better than a feast offering, to listen is better than the fat of rams (I Samuel 15:22).”
The same point is found in an additional verse: “I desire kindness, not sacrifice, and knowledge of G-d more than burnt offerings (Hosea 6:6).”
“Feast offerings and meal offerings You did not desire, ears You have opened for me, burnt offering and sin offering You did not request (Psalms 40:7).” This sounds like G-d rejects sacrifices, or does it? What does G-d seek instead? “Ears you have opended for me” is about obedience to the G-d (recall the statement in Jeremiah “listen to My voice” as counterpoint to sacrifices). The Psalmist himself says, “I delight to do your will, my G-d, and your Law is within my inwards parts (40:9).” Not an invalidation of sacrifices, this is rather an invalidation of the missionary view that blood atonement, apart from the Law, is the path to salvation.
Apparently, the New Testament was not comfortable with Psalms 40:7, for it altered the words of the Bible!: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a BODY you prepared for me (Hebrews 10:5).” This total distortion of Psalms 40:7 is used to justify the “body” of Jesus as superior to sacrifices. A verse which downplays blood in favor of G-d's commandments is stood on its head: all is inferior to the blood of Jesus.
The hammer blow to the allegation that sacrifices are ineffective is that sacrifices will be reinstituted! Missionaries, however, maintain Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice:
“By that will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (Hebrews 10:10).”
“And when these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin” (10:18).”
“”He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves, but he entered the most holy place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption (9:12).”
This belief is against the Bible. Several End of Days prophecies speak of the return of sacrifices in the End of Days:
“Their burnt-offerin
gs and sacrifices will be accepted favorably on My altar, for My Temple will be called a house of prayer for all the nations (Isaiah 56:7).”'”For seven days you shall offer a sin-offering each day, also an unblemished young bull from the herd and an unblemished ram from the flock (Ezekiel. 43:25).”
“'Every pot in Jerusalem and Judea will be sanctified to the G-d of Hosts. And all those who bring sacrifices will come and take from them to cook in them (Zech. 14:21).”
“He will sit refining and purifying silver. He will purify the descendants of Levi, refine them like gold and silver. Then they will present G-d with offerings of righteousness (Malachi 3:3-4).”
It is impossible to maintain that sacrifices are ineffective, a mere shadow of a future crucifixion, if sacrifices will be offered in the Third Temple.
Summary: Sacrifices ordained in the Bible effectively atone. At the same time, they are not the only source of atonement. G-d prefers obedience to sacrifice and rejects sacrifices only when they are not brought with sincere repentance. These limitations in no way invalidate the sacrificial system nor do they provide justification for Jesus as the means of atonement.
Source: http://anti-missionary.com/files/MythIneffectiveSacrifices.html
Adam………You are correct Obedience is definitely better than sacrifice, but the problem is we have all disobeyed and therefore there is a need to be redeemed, this requires the JUSTICE of GOD to be fulfilled or His righteous Judgements would be annulled ,the atoning sacrifice of Jesus is the redemption need for us to approach GOD. We were separated from approaching GOD until the Vail was rent and we can Now go before the Mercy Set of GOD and find Mercy in our times of Need, We have now in direct contact to GOD the FATHER, Because our sins are covered by the Sacrifice of Jesus. GOD no longer considers us sinners, but sons and daughters of His, and where sin did abound GRACE di MUCH MORE ABOUND. Adam we all have much more going for us all because of the Sacrifice of Jesus. IMO
Peace and love to you Adam and yours…………………gene
hi goll
sacrifice of Christ is the payment for the lost live of Adam,you know the law ;hand for hand eye for eye,live for a live ,so in the law it says the live is in the blood,so the sacrifice as to be with the pouring of blood,wen the blood is pour out of the soul live has gone out of the soul.
the question may be ask did the WORD(Christ) stay dead long ? well he told his disciples that they will be changed in a instant wen they die ,would not this be the same for Christ?i believe it would.Gollamundi,
You must be having a bad day as I do not think you though through what I wrote before you responded to me.
Gollamundi wrote:
Quote Samson death never meant for any atonement of sins of Israel.
I use the allegory of Jesus sacrificing himself to defeat God’s enemies and not as atonement. In this way I demonstrate self sacrifice is indeed a concept supported by the Old Testament.
Gollamundi wrote:
Quote Your way of expressing sin as an enemy of God is also Christian in nature.
If you believe that then you are missing the main point of the Torah and why the Children of Israel are ordered to obey all that God commands them.
‘
It is possible that you misunderstand me as when I state Jesus defeats sin I mean he stops his followers from sinning through his act. In other words the obey all the commands of God.Gollamundi wrote:
Quote Famous Rudolf Bultmann had rightly commented that New Testament consists of lot of mythology like heavenly redeemer comes in disguise of a human and offer himself as sacrifice to defeat the enemies of God.
I have no idea what Mr. Bulmann is speaking of since Jesus is a human and does not come in the disguise of a human. He does sacrifice himself to defeat the enemies of God and thus bring about the Messianic age. Therefore this Mr. Bulltman does not seem to believe in the Messianic age.
Gollamundi wrote:
Quote God. I always wonder for whom this ransom paid, to God or satan?
God is the one who stated “The Wages of Sin is death”. The question is “who gets paid the wages?”
Gollamundi wrote:
Quote New Testament contains lot of duality in its definition of God and evil. Satan is magnified as another god opposite to God.
That sounds like something a Trinitarian would conclude. Do you also believe the children of Israel are deities because God refers to them as children of God..(The sarcasm was intended)
Hi brother kerwin, I used the word 'Ransom' to be paid to whom whether God or satan, as Paul says Christians were under bondage to satan. You didn't answer my queries properly. You know one thing all the Gospels were written later than Paul's epistles therefore there are already biased by the mythology of Paul the Hellenistic jew. Even then the Gospels differ in many ways with Paul regarding the teachings of historical Jesus. please read some books on N.T historians you will understand how they differ from the teachings of paul. The belief in Jesus for personal salvation, cultic interpretation of Jesus' death were all the invention of Paul. No jew beleives that you have t believe in a human Messiah for the remission of sins or to achieve share in the world to come. God is the source of forgiveness of sins and He is the reason for every thing. Christianity deviated from its roots. Please read the book, 'Parting of ways' by james D.G. Dunn you will realise how christianity had separatd itself from it original creed of Judaism.
Please think over
AdamQuote (Gene @ Feb. 14 2010,04:50) Adam………You are correct Obedience is definitely better than sacrifice, but the problem is we have all disobeyed and therefore there is a need to be redeemed, this requires the JUSTICE of GOD to be fulfilled or His righteous Judgements would be annulled ,the atoning sacrifice of Jesus is the redemption need for us to approach GOD. We were separated from approaching GOD until the Vail was rent and we can Now go before the Mercy Set of GOD and find Mercy in our times of Need, We have now in direct contact to GOD the FATHER, Because our sins are covered by the Sacrifice of Jesus. GOD no longer considers us sinners, but sons and daughters of His, and where sin did abound GRACE di MUCH MORE ABOUND. Adam we all have much more going for us all because of the Sacrifice of Jesus. IMO Peace and love to you Adam and yours…………………gene
Hi brother Gene,
Thanks for such agreement. But the question here is how the cultic death of Jesus became the center of salvation. hebrew scriptures never meant for such human sacrifice and see the arguments against it. I want to ask you one thing if Jesus is the true means of forgiveness of sins what happened to all true believers of God before Jesus' death? Did God not forgive the sins of true Israelites in the past when they truely saught the LORD? I feel it is mere invention of Paul to interpret Jesus' death as the vicarious atonement for sins. There are strong arguments against such interpretation as I have quoted in my earlier posts.please think over
AdamFor brother kerwin….
Is Blood Required For Atonement of Sins According to the Tanakh?
A common Christian assertion is that the only way to obtain atonement for one's sins is by way of the blood of a sacrificial offering, through “the shedding of blood”.
They also avow that since all humanity is infected with the communicable strain of Adam and Eve's ‘ original sin’, only the blood of a perfect, sinless surrogate, namely J.C. (Jesus) can have the power to pay the ransom that is required to overcome our sinful human nature.
Thus, they say the blood that J.C. shed on the ‘cross’ has paid for the sins of those who accept him as their lord and savior since he died for their sins.
Christians also put forward the claim that the “Old Testament decrees the shedding of blood is a necessary condition for the atonement of one's sins, and that without it, making amends for sin is impossible.
When the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans (70 CE), Jews were left without the required animal sacrificial system for atonement.
Therefore according to the Christian scenario it was necessary that Elohim provide a blood atonement to replace the animal sacrifices. They say He did this through the death of J.C. on the cross.
The Biblical verse snippet most often cited to support this claim is the following portion of Leviticus 17:11,
“………for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.”
The supposed message contained in this portion of the verse is reflected in the New Testament in passages such as,
Hebrews 9:22 – And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without the shedding of blood there is no atonement.
A superficial reading of the verse in Leviticus, without looking at the entire passage and placing it in its proper context, will almost surely lead to a conclusion that only by being covered in the blood of J.C. can one have any hope of being forgiven for his/her sins.
Just what are the facts found in Tanakh?
The entire verse is as follows:
Leviticus 17:11 – This is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.
When we consider this total verse and do not ignore the fact that it is part of a passage that prohibits the consumption of blood, we see that it specifically states that the blood of the sacrifice must be placed ” upon the altar to make atonement for your souls”.
The only way in which blood can bring atonement is if it is placed on the sacrificial altar in the Temple. This is a necessary condition. The entire verse must be considered and not just part of it!
This then invites the question:
Was the blood of J.C. sprinkled on the altar?
The New Testament doesn't offer any evidence or indication or even a hint in support of this requirement.
The blood of J.C. was never placed on the altar in the Temple, which was still standing in Jerusalem at the time of his crucifixion.
Therefore, since this necessary condition wasn't satisfied, the claim, that his death could provide atonement doesn't stand. Plainly the death of J.C. brings atonement for no one.
Is blood the only means of atonement for sin?
The Tanakh clearly identifies three distinct methods of atonement: animal sacrifices, true repentance & prayer, and charitable deeds.
We look first at sacrifices.
The Torah speaks of two kinds of sacrifices that were used for the atonement of transgressions:
The sin sacrifice (Hebrew “korban khatat”) and the guilt sacrifice (“korban asham”).
We also learn in Torah that the sin sacrifice did not atone for every kind of sin. Its purpose was to atone for a person’s unintentional sins, the most insignificant of transgressions.
Numbers 15:27-28
(27) And if any person sins unintentionally, then he shall bring a female goat of the first year for a sin offering.(28) And the priest shall make atonement for the person who sins out of ignorance, when he sins unintentionally before YHWH, to make atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him.
Looking at the Levitical Law of Sacrifice, we find a similar message. The details concerning sacrifices for sin are found in Lev 4:1-35. There we learn that these were required offerings, and that their purposes were, to atone for sins committed without awareness.
This sin sacrifice did not suffice for the atonement of a sin that was committed intentionally. He who sinned willfully was banned from the Sanctuary, and had to bear his own iniquity because of his rebellion in sinning against Elohim.
Numbers 15:30-31
(30) But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is born in the land, or a stranger, that person YHWH; and that person shall be cut off from among his people.(31) Because he has despised the word of YHWH, and has broken His commandment, that person shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.
Again in the Law of Sacrifice found in Leviticus, we find that some intentionally committed transgressions demanded a guilt sacrifice.
The details concerning guilt sacrifices are found in Lev 5:14-26. There we see that these offerings were required for such offenses as robbery and the taking of Temple property, then restitution was also required.
We can see that no sacrificial offerings were mandated for all other transgressions (sins not covered by the “korban khatat” or the “korban asham”. Thus, obviously, there had to exist another way to obtain atonement for such sins.
As an example, let us consider from the TN’K a situation where atonement is achieved without the shedding of blood.
Whenever a census was made of those able-bodied men 20 years of age and over to establish who and how many, were fit for military duties, every adult Israelite counted was required to pay a half-shekel.
Exodus 30:12-14
(12) When you take the census of the people of Israel according to their number, then shall they give every man a ransom (Hebrew “kopher”) for his soul to YHWH, when you count them; that there should be no plague among them, when you count them.
(13) This they shall give, every one who passes among those who are counted, half a shekel according to the shekel of the Sanctuary; a shekel is twenty gerahs; a half shekel shall be the offering of YHWH.
(14) Every one who passes among those who are counted, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering to YHWH.
The Hebrew term for 'ransom' (kopher) appears 3 other times in Torah (Exod 21:30; Num 35:31,32).
Each time it refers to the money paid by someone who is guilty of taking a human life in circumstances that do not constitute murder (manslaughter).
The owner of an ox that killed a person after the owner had received warning that the animal was dangerous, was charged with the death of a person; but because his crime was not intentional, he was permitted to pay a 'ransom' (Exod 21:30).
In cases of deliberate murder such a ransom was not allowed.
(Num 35:31,32).We should also consider the requirements for atonement of sins such as being a false witness and then confessing to it, or being contaminated but entering the Sanctuary and then realizing what happened and admitting it (Lev 5:1-13).
These sins required variable offerings that depended on one's means as follows: a female lamb or goat (blood sacrifice), or a pair of turtledoves or young pigeons (blood sacrifice), or a certain weight of fine flour (non- blood offering).
Leviticus 5:11-13
(11) But if he is not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he who sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, nor shall he put any frankincense on it
; for it is a sin offering.(12) Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, a memorial part of it, and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire to YHWH; it is a sin offering.
(13) And the priest shall make an atonement for him in regard to his sin that he has sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him; and the remnant shall be the priest’s, as a meal offering.
Please notice that an animal sacrifice isn't a requirement for atonement when the person cannot afford such an animal – one tenth of an ephah of fine flour, without added oil or frankincense, serves as a valid sin offering.
Since there is no Temple standing in Jerusalem at this time, animal sacrifices are in a state of suspension, just as they were during the 70-year exile in Babylon following the destruction of the First Temple.
Since animal sacrifices had to be performed by the altar in the Temple, this isn't possible today. Thus this process for the atonement of unintentional sins, or any sin requiring the animal sacrifice is not available to us at this time.
Gollamundi wrote:
Quote You didn't answer my queries properly.
I did answer them as they needed to be answered though perhaps I am assuming you know things that you do not.
Gollamundi wrote:
Quote please read some books on N.T historians you will understand how they differ from the teachings of Paul
.
I regard those historians as false teachers of Law as they do not have the Spirit of God. If they did then they would understand the good news of the Kingdom of God.
I read scripture and the teachings are the same. An example of this is that both Jesus and Paul teach that Jesus will set those that believe in him free from the bondage to Satan.
Gollamundi wrote:
Quote I used the word 'Ransom' to be paid to whom whether God or Satan, as Paul says Christians were under bondage to Satan.
It is true that non-believers are under bondage to sin,. The cost of this bondage is death. That is a spiritual law that God may bend but not break as far as I can tell.
At this point I would like to inject my own point and that is that God commanded the children of Israel to sacrifice a bull to atone. Since the sum of the Law is Love your neighbor as yourself it means that even this sacrifice was based on love for his people. It is clear that the sacrifice of an animal was to bring the individual or group, depending on the type of sacrifice, doing so closer to God. The problem is that those doing the sacrifice will still in bondage to sin and so they required additional sacrifices to atone for their sins at later times. The self-sacrifice of Jesus , a truly righteous man, set those that believe in him free from that bondage and thus introduced us to the coming Messianic Age.
Gollamundi wrote:
Quote God is the source of forgiveness of sins and He is the reason for every thing.
That statement is correct but you seem ignorant that he said that he forgives those who turn away from all of their sins and do all that is right. Belief in Jesus is the only way to accomplish that goal. If you reject that belief then you reject that goal. If you believe God then it is as if that goal has already been accomplished for God is faithful and will do as he promised.
Gollamundi wrote:
Quote The belief in Jesus for personal salvation, cultic interpretation of Jesus' death were all the invention of Paul.
I have no idea what you mean by “cultic interpretation” but as for personal salvation that is a Jewish concept as God does not address the whole nation of Israel but rather states “the man who sins ins the man who dies.”
Gollamundi's source reads:
Quote When the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans (70 CE), Jews were left without the required animal sacrificial system for atonement.
I do not believe that Scripture supports the Jewish claim that only sacrifices in the Temple atone for sins for the simple reason there were sacrifices before the Temple was built.
I believe they come to that mistaken notion over a strict interpretation of a command that forbids them from sacrificing other places when the Temple is in existence.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
