The Prophet’s Perspective
Christian missionaries insist that you need blood for atonement. Not only do the missionaries claim that without blood there is no atonement for sin but they also contend that this doctrine is taught in the Jewish Scriptures.
These assertions are critical components in the ongoing missionary campaign to persuade people to give their hearts to Jesus. According to the missionary; when Jesus came on the scene, everyone already knew that their sins can never be forgiven without the shedding of blood because this is what the prophets of Scripture had proclaimed in the past. The missionary would have you believe that Jesus came to supply mankind with the blood atonement that they so desperately needed.
The problem that the missionary faces is the simple fact that the Jewish Scriptures do NOT say that you NEED blood for atonement. Yes; the prophets taught that blood offerings CAN atone (Leviticus 17:11), but that is not the same thing like saying that without blood there is no atonement. Isn’t that amazing? According to the missionary one of the most important principles that Scripture ought to teach us is that there is no atonement without blood yet there is not one verse in the entire Hebrew Bible that says anything of the sort.
How do the missionaries deal with this challenge to their house of cards?
In order to paint their doctrine into the Jewish Bible the missionaries turn to the book of Leviticus. They point to the many offerings listed in that book and they argue that these offerings were critical and central to the process of atonement. They point to other blood offerings mentioned in the Five Books of Moses in their effort to establish a theory of the “centrality of the sacrifices”. The missionary argument highlights these offerings and contends that the central position that these offerings occupy in the Five Books of Moses should lead one to the conclusion that there is no atonement without blood.
The Jewish response to this argument is that the critical and central component of the atonement process is repentance. While the Temple was standing God commanded us in some instances to express our repentance with a blood offering but the key factor in obtaining God’s forgiveness was always repentance.
The Christian missionaries claim that the Jewish response is not based on Scripture but rather it is built on the Jewish blind refusal to consider the claim of Jesus.
Fortunately we have a passage in the Jewish Bible that could tell us who exactly is reading the Bible with a distorting lens of bias.
In the book of Jonah the prophet witnesses God’s mercy when God forgives the Ninevites on the occasion of their repentance. Jonah then exclaims to God “I knew that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger, abundant in kindness, and relent from doing harm.” The fact that God forgave the people of Nineveh after they repented did not surprise Jonah in the least. In fact this is exactly what Jonah expected.
Why? Did Jonah not study the Five Books and learn the doctrine of the “centrality of the sacrifices”? How could Jonah expect the Ninevites to find atonement without a blood offering?
Jonah supplies us with the answer to this question. Jonah quotes the Five Books of Moses. In so doing Jonah teaches us which passage in the Five Books is the one that identifies the critical factor in the atonement process. It is NOT Leviticus 17:11. In fact it is not any passage that mentions blood. Instead Jonah quotes Exodus 34:6 which describes God as a “God compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in kindness”. This is the passage from the Five Books that Jonah the prophet saw as central to the process of achieving forgiveness from sin.
It is clear that Jonah the prophet read the Jewish Bible the way Jews read it today and the missionary teaching that claims to be based on the Five Books of Moses was as foreign to Jonah as it is to Jews today.
If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.
Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.
Yisroel C. Blumenthal
Christianity interprets and assume a lot. But could you explain why Isaiah spoke of a human (or symbolic collective) suffering as if he/they were in effect an atonement offering?
Suffering can be an atonement for the individual who suffers as per Psalm 25:18 – that is the intent of Isaiah 53:10
So, in other words the church mistranslates the Hebrew to this?
10 But the Lord was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.
As opposed to the Jewish rendering?
10. And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God’s purpose shall prosper in his hand.
So it has nothing to do with suffering as an Asham, guilt offering, and if it did, Jsus would A) be a limited atonement (per Lev 5 through 6:7) and B) it does not follow that he would see offspring-prolonged days since he would be dead.
Oh and is it also a contradiction to say an Asham suffers? If an Asham suffers, it is treif right? We can not take a goat, whip it until it bleeds, nail it to a cross, suffocate it to death and still call it a “sacrifice”…right?
I don’t think the key difference is “guilt offering” versus restitution – but rather the concept that any “asham” wether guilt offering or restitution comes with an acknowledgement of one’s own guilt – which is pretty hard to to do if you are deluded into thinking that you are sinless (a dangerous delusion may I add)
I have two questions.
“The problem that the missionary faces is the simple fact that the Jewish Scriptures do NOT say that you NEED blood for atonement.”
In regards to this, does the Jewish Scripture provide a way for atonement other than through a blood sacrifice?
“How could Jonah expect the Ninevites to find atonement without a blood offering? … This is the passage from the Five Books that Jonah the prophet saw as central to the process of achieving forgiveness from sin”
Is atonement the same as forgiveness? I was thinking of the Yom Kippur and unsure why there is the requirement for a blood sacrifice if repentance is all that was needed?
These questions are clear and good, espec. last 2 sentences.
I don’t see any reason to distinguish between atonement and forgiveness
Repentance means turning back to God to obey all of His commandments – sometimes God commands us to give expression to our repentance with a sacrifice – this is a privilege he grants us when we have a Temple – but nowhere does it say that without these sacrifices then there is no forgiveness
“I don’t see any reason to distinguish between atonement and forgiveness”
you can get forgiveness by repenting and offering up some grain, then Yom Kippur is not needed at all.
Here are a few “No Blood” verses:
Lev 511 But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that 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, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering.
12 Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the Lord: it is a sin offering.
Num 16:46 And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on incense, and go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them: for there is wrath gone out from the Lord; the plague is begun.
47 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.
Psa 40 6 Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired;
My ears You have opened;
Burnt offering and sin offering You have not required.
1 Kings 8:48 if they return to You with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their enemies who have taken them captive, and pray to You toward their land which You have given to their fathers, the city which You have chosen, and the house which I have built for Your name; 49 then hear their prayer and their supplication in heaven Your dwelling place, and maintain their cause, 50 and forgive Your people who have sinned against You
Prov 213 To do righteousness and justice
Is desired by the Lord more than sacrifice.
Hos 6:6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.
Dan 4:27 Therefore, Your Majesty, be pleased to accept my advice: Renounce your sins by doing what is right, and your wickedness by being kind to the oppressed. It may be that then your prosperity will continue.”
Jer 7:21 “21 Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, “Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat flesh. 22 For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. 23 But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.’
By lovingkindness and truth iniquity is atoned for, And by the fear of the Lord one keeps away from evil.
Of course! G-d desired true repentance of the heart; without that, blood sacrifices are nothing more than dead animals. As the rabbi has said before, if we do not know G-d in our daily lives, then what does the smoke on the altar mean?
Yet G-d did still require the yearly blood atonement for sin that was completely separate from all of these personal atonements of varying kinds…
I looked up the verse you mentioned, Leviticus 17:11, and it says the following:
“For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have therefore given it to you [to be placed] upon the altar, to atone for your souls. For it is the blood that atones for the soul.”
In searching Scripture to find other things that were specifically mentioned as able to atone for the soul, I am not finding any (we know from Leviticus chapters 4-7 that specific sins were atoned through sacrifices of various kinds, but I do not see verses that mention atoning for the soul). In addition, Leviticus 16, which uses the same Hebrew word (כָּפַר ) for atonement as Leviticus 17:11, does not replace the personal atonements to be made for individual sins but rather was to be done by the high priest every year, regardless of the number of sins committed throughout the year, to atone for all sin in general. Leviticus 16 uses that Hebrew word for atonement (כָּפַר ) at least 13 times.
I do agree with you that some people do inaccurately teach that no sin can be atoned except through blood sacrifices. That claim is simply not true. Throughout the chapters I mentioned above (and elsewhere) we clearly see various atonements for various sins (i.e., although Leviticus chapters 4-7 do repeatedly mention the blood, even for sacrifices throughout the year, the people were also allowed to bring flour, for example, if they could not afford the lamb or turtledoves.)
In Leviticus chapter 16, the context was atonement for “all” of Israel’s sin, yet it is not said that the punishments for individual sins throughout the year would be erased, in any way (elsewhere, G-d clearly described the punishment/atonements for individual sins). Rather, this atonement is mentioned as a general atonement for sin, in addition to the personal, earthly rewards and punishments, in Israel approaching G-d.
I also searched through the book of Jonah, and Jonah never says the Ninevites’ sin was atoned, nor does the subject seem to be the same at all. Rather, this subject focuses on G-d’s goodness and longsuffering. We are not told whether the Ninevites continued to seek G-d or learned more about the G-d of Israel and His Sabbaths, which is what Scripture said foreigners who sought the G-d of Israel were to do. What we do see here is that G-d is kind and longsuffering and desires that the wicked turn from evil, humbling themselves to truly seek His face.
As to things that it never says… there’s the idea that the system in place in times of Tanach is not enough even during periods of Israel’s exile. The assumption that an unmentioned, ultimate sacrifice is *necessary* for for atonement, forgiveness, etc., is missing from the Jewish scriptures. So why accept the idea?
(I didn’t phrase clearly. I meant, “It never says that the system in place in times of Tanach is not enough. Even during periods of Israel’s exile.”)
Enough for what? To fulfill the covenant? Is a covenant still a covenant after it has been broken many, many times? The beauty is that we do see G-d’s Everlasting Love and Persistent Forgiveness through the broken Sinai covenant. He said HE would be the one to wash away Israel’s iniquities, not that she would be justified by her system. That is, He said that she had failed the system but that He would wash away her sin for His Own Name’s sake (Isaiah 43:25), and that despite her sin as described in the entire first part of Isaiah chapter 59, He searched for an intercessor on her behalf and found none other but Himself (Isaiah 59:16 And He saw that there was no man, and was astonished that there was no intercessor; therefore His own arm brought salvation unto Him; and His righteousness, it sustained Him…”).
His Love and Goodness are Everlasting! May we know and love our G-d of the Scriptures.
The fact that all sins are atoned for through the Yom Kippur sacrifice does NOT mean that there is no other way to achieve this atonement – that is an unwarranted conclusion that has no basis in Scripture – Yes – when the Temple is standing and if Israel were not to bring the Yom Kippur sacrifices – then that would be an expression of rebellion against God – but if we do not have the opportunity to bring the sacrifices – there is nothing in Scripture to indicate that we would not have atonement
As for atonement for the soul – how about Numbers 31:50?
The story of Jonah is about turning back God’s wrath when it is aroused by sin – to me that is atonement and forgiveness such as found in Numbers 17:11
When blood was used, the necessary requirement was it had to be on the altar. Christ blood was not on the altar.
The only way HASHEM said the atonement could be achieved, however, was through Yom Kippur. Just as there is no verse to say that there is not atonement without it, there is no verse that says there IS atonement for sin (again, sinfulness in general, not specific sins) without it. Of course I do believe in G-d’s Mercy – but the attitude we see in those who did not have Yom Kippur was one of confession of sin and acknowledgment of blame, as with Daniel 9.
I do not see Numbers 17:11 the same as the story of Jonah because the topic does not seem the same. One is about atonement for those who had knowledge of the way G-d provided for such atonement, while the other passage of Scripture shows only the beginning stage of foreigners turning from wickedness. We do know from other Scriptures that G-d had requirements beyond what we see in Jonah for foreigners, too, so this clearly was not the whole story.
With regard to Numbers 31:50, you are right – this does also mention atonement for the soul, using the same Hebrew words as are used in Leviticus 17:11. The difference is that in Leviticus 17:11, G-d was the one speaking, saying what He had provided as the atonement for the soul. What HE said was the blood. In Numbers 31:50, it is the people (not G-d) saying what they had brought as an atonement for their souls (not G-d saying what they should bring). And it is also important to note that Numbers 31:50 is preceded by Numbers 31:28 and an entire section leading up to verse 50 that tell us Hashem’s portion — what HASHEM said to set aside for Him — .entailed much more than jewels. In Numbers31:37, for example, He says: “And HaShem’s tribute of the sheep was six hundred and threescore and fifteen.”
That is, this entire section deals with much more than jewels.
In any case, what I meant to say is that I did not see any other Scripture in which HASHEM (not the people) said something other than blood was what He had provided as atonement for the soul. Many places in Scripture we see people say many things; that is not the same as Hashem saying it. This is not to say that Hashem, in His Mercy, could not accept their offering (along with the animals that they were already bringing, according to His list of what His portion would be). But still, what Hashem said He provided as the atonement for the soul was the blood. And I do view what G-d Himself said as most important.
You are looking for a verse that speaks of God’s forgiveness without blood? – How about Isaiah 55:7 and Ezekiel 33:11,16,19
Your discount Numbers 31:50 because it was not God talking – I think this is unwarranted because there is no reson to record it if it weren’t accurate – it is not presented as a mistake – according to you you should discount Daniel 9 because it was not God talking – in any case what do you have to say about Exodus 30:15? The silver was used to make the bases for the boards of the Tabernacle (Exodus 38:27)
The animals mentioned in Numbers 31:28 were not sacrfices they were a gift to the priests
Deuteronomy 30:2 answers your last question
There are, as you say, many, many verses that refer to forgiveness in which blood is not mentioned; I was not referring to forgiveness. What I WAS saying is that the only thing HASHEM specifically listed in Scripture as what HE provided as the atonement for the soul is the blood (Leviticus 17:11), and He gave it in the context of a perpetual establishment, not in a context of a gift that the people decided to offer of their own volition.
In my noting that Numbers 31:50 referred to what the people (not Hashem) said, I was not discounting this situation at all, or implying that the account is inaccurate. Of course I believe it is accurate. I was merely pointing out that the entire context here does not at all represent what G-d “required” as atonement for the soul because obviously this was not a case (as was Leviticus 17:11) of G-d’s general directives regarding sin but rather was a case of the people speaking of a single event (the context being one of battle) in which they gave a gift, apparently as their own offering. And this context does also state Hashem’s portion of animals (along with slaves) not as a “gift” for the priests but rather as a requirement that Hashem commanded (note that it says in that passage that the priests “did as the LORD commanded”). Obviously, the entire situation here had nothing to do with Yom Kippur or with G-d’s requirements regarding sacrifices – He had already given those. Leviticus 17:11, on the other hand, directly follows the lengthy entire chapter (much more text than was used to discuss any other sacrifice) that G-d devoted to discussing Yom Kippur – the sacrifice that was for “sin” in general, completely separate from the daily and/or specific sins that had their own individual atonements. This (Yom Kippur) was for general sin, and it had to be a blood sacrifice.
I also did point out that atonement was mentioned in many other contexts regarding specific sins – so, certainly, I was not trying to say that all atonements for everything was always a blood sacrifice. Rather, I was pointing out that Lev. 17:11 is unique not only for its context but also for its specific statement that this was what HASHEM (not man) provided as the atonement for the soul. With regard to Exodus 30:15, G-d said what they were to bring (not what He Himself had provided for them), and if we back up to Exodus 30:10, just 5 verses earlier, we also see that the context was one in which the high priest would have ALREADY offered the blood of the sin offerings: Exodus 30:10 “But Aaron shall make atonement upon its horns once a year; with the blood of the sin offering of the atonements, once a year he shall effect atonement upon it for your generations; it is a holy of holies to the Lord.”
In any case, I am certainly not trying to say the blood sacrifice is the answer for every atonement, not at all. G-d desires that we repent, as Daniel demonstrates in Daniel 9 (I specifically consider strongly those men of G-d who pleased G-d as my examples), and that we have a humble heart to seek Him. However, G-d Himself required the blood (as noted above regarding His establishment of Yom Kippur and His own comment about what HE had provided as the atonement for the soul in Leviticus 17:11). These chapters were given in a very serious context as not just a single incident but as G-d’s establishment “for all time.” So, obviously, the blood is very important.
That said, as I think I have commented before, without a heart of repentance and humility, sacrifices amounted to nothing more than dead animals. WITH a heart of repentance, however, we see repeatedly in Scripture an acknowledgment of the cost of sin when godly men offered the blood of sacrifices (and G-d stated it directly as the cost, or payment, for some specific sins multiple times, and He required it for Yom Kippur in reference to general sinfulness). For Yom Kippur, He did not provide the option of substituting something else, in fact, so we see from this that the blood was very important, too. Yet as He said in Leviticus 17:11, the blood was what HE had provided as the atonement for the soul…this was HIS provision, not our own work. All of this should lead us to simply praise Him for His provision for our sin and His Everlasting Love and to acknowledge His Holiness for what it is.
As important as sacrifices are – but there is a provision granted us by God that precedes all sacrifices and that is the gift to be able to obey His call – Psalm 40:7
This being the case what we are to look for is how to obey God and not how to “beat the system”
I absolutely agree with you that G-d never desired nor indicated nor asked that we look for a way to “beat the system” – He sees the heart. There is no way around submission to G-d, an earnest seeking of His ways and His Word, and trust in Him alone.
When He provided the blood as atonement, as He said in Leviticus 17:11, this was after the Law and scrolls were already in place. He knew we would fail, and that was His provision. Yet there certainly is no place for a “home free – I don’t care about obeying G-d” type of attitude. His Love for us SHOULD move us to more deeply love and obey Him, not claim we no longer need to do so. I would doubt that one who has that kind of attitude has truly come to know the G-d of Israel at all, because that is not what G-d desires, and it never has been.
Allow me to try to summarize how the recent exchange between you and Rabbi B. over the course of several different comments on several different threads looks to the outside reader..
You: The blood is critical for atonement
Rabbi B and others: Their are numerous verses indicating that their are other paths to atonement.
You: But I’m looking for specific reference to atonement of the soul in those Hebrew words
Rabbi B: Ok, look at Numbers 31:50
You:: Well, yeah, but that was said by the people I’m looking for something said by God himself like Lev 17:11
Rabbi B:. Ok, look at Exodus 30:15 (and 30:16) where the phrase to atone for your soul is repeated twice as an explicit instruction from God
You: Well, yeah, but what I meant is that Lev 17:11 is unique because God use the words “I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls” so since it uses the word’s I have given it to you that forms the basis of something entirely different and unique that is is greater than the some total of all the otehr verses you can quote to me about other kinds of atonement
Don’t you see what’s going on here. It clearly doesn’t matter how many verses from the Tanach you will be shown to clarify the teaching that blood is not a requisite for atonement. You will read Lev 17:11 as you see fit because it fits your christian theology.
Let’s take another look at Lev 17:10-12 which I am going to paraphrase for the sake of simplicity
10: Listen up Jews, Don’t:eat blood
11: For I have given you blood for atonement purposes.
12: So again,Jews,, Don’t eat blood
Now I realize that nothing in the world is going to change your mind, but for the sake of simple honesty, can you at least not begin to see why a Tanach that includes those three verses in that particular context along with numerous other verses that speak of non-blood-related atonement and emphasizing repentence, are not going to be understood the way you understand them. For someone who makes so much repeated emphasis on talking Gods Tanach at its word I would think you could at least acknowledge that.
I do not want to speak for Freedom here, but I was looking at the reference you made to Exodus 30:15-16 and thought it was odd that you did not mention Exodus 30:10 which preceded it. Maybe that is because the atonement mentioned in verse 10 refers to the blood atonement, or more specifically the “blood of the sin offering for atonement” which seems towards the point I think Freedom was trying to make.
Now I am not sure that the atonement reference in 30:16 is of the same weight as the reference in 30:10 since verse 16 is referring to the ransom that people were paying for their lives and not for a sin, but I guess the argument could be made that not paying the half shekel for the service of the tent of meeting. Of course God specified that this was an offering and not a sin offering, so I would suggest that the use of atonement here is not of the same weight as the usage a few verses prior. It kinds of reminds me of the use of abomination in Proverbs 6:16 compared to Deuteronomy 17:4. While a lying tongue is an abomination, there was no call for stoning in the same manner serving another god.
I was thinking that Exodus 32:30 was an interesting reference to atonement, as Moses was going to try and make an atonement for the people who sinned against God, but God said that He would indeed punish those people for their sins on the day that He punishes. Maybe this shows that there is a difference between forgiveness and atonement as I have been contending, of course it would depend on the usage of atonement since its usage is not always referring to a sin issue.
Now Rabbi B also made use of Numbers 31:50 as another reference towards atonement without the use of blood, but I contend that this is another instance where the context is not the same as for Yom Kippur. There is no reference of a sin being committed or of the offering being a sin offering, so this appears to be more closely related to Exodus 30:16, especially since this atonement offering served as a memorial for God protecting them, especially when looking at 31:28 where it was said that this was a tribute to the LORD from all of the men who went into battle.
Now there is a good reference to kapar that no one has made yet in 1st Samuel 3:14. Here we have a decree against the house of Eli saying it can never be purged (atonement) by sacrifice or grain offering. No amount of repentance would ever allow for the sins to be purged from this household. To me, this is another example of the differences between forgiveness and atonement. A similar argument can be made for Isaiah 22:14. Isaiah 28:18 makes another reference to the purging or atonement of sin and death, but as a Christian I take that passage to apply toward the Messiah so I will fully understand if it is dismissed.
The reason I did not mentioned Exodus 30:10 is because notwithstanding its proximity to Exodus 30:15-16 it has no clear connection to it. Surely, you recognize the formulation of Exodus 30:11 “And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying” as being the standard introduction to a new topic – which it in fact is – and which is also indicated by the traditional Jewish demarcations between sections within the Torah – a tradition unfamiliar to most Christians. So while you may find the proximity of 30:15 to the reference to the Yom Kippur service in 30:10 interesting, that is your.homiletical choice, not a matter of direct scriptural context.
Much of the same applies to the balance of your comments which consist of your ruminations about different kinds of atonement. It’s interesting that when Jews point to scripture about forgiveness the topic shifts to the distinction between forgivenss and atonement and when the Jew then points to atonement, the topic shifts to “sin offering atonement” or Lev 17:11 and its particular phraseology. But the immense scriptural evidence about being right with God on the basis of obedience to his law and repentence for our failures,remains ignored.
Are you capable of talking a step back and see that what you are engaging in is an effort to find some word or words that will form the basis for seeing prime importance where you want to see it and distinguishing it from where you don’t want to see it.
The Jewish perspective by contrast is to look at the totality of the experience recorded in the scripture of what it means to serve God.
– To see where God talks about what he expects of us (observe the commandments)
– and what to do when we fail as we are want to do (repent and try again)
– when he wants sacrifices (when there is a temple)
– and where he wants them (in the temple, Duet 12),
– That there may be periods without such opportunity (when there is no temple, Lev 26:31)
– and we can to expect ultimate salvation even after exile and dispersion (duet 30)
I was thinking that Rabbi B had failed to mention Exodus 30:10 since you were merely giving a recap of the conversation between Freedom and he, but I was not trying to draw a comparison between the two items due to closeness in print but merely point out that there were differences in the meaning of atonement between the two passages.
By no means am I dismissing the “scriptural evidence about being right with God on the basis of obedience to his law and repentance for failures”. In fact it is for those very reasons why I point out that that there is a difference between the atonement with blood and the various sacrificial offerings for sins.
Does not one have to follow the Day of Atonement in order to be in obedience of the law? Is not the blood offering for atonement a requirement of God’s law? I am not dismissing obedience at all or maybe I am wrong in that not all commandments are required to be followed.
I agree that when a person fails that God often allows for repentance the ability to try again. Maybe not as much try again as you either follow the commandments or you do not, but in the case you do not, God at times will allow for repentance and forgiveness as the person returns to following all of the commandments, unless I am wrong and the person only has to follow some of the commandments.
Now I disagree with the argument that God wants all sacrifices at the temple, since the statues and commandments for the sacrifices were given prior to the first temple, but I believe you are making the argument that a sacrifice cannot be made just anywhere. Now David did make an altar and offered sacrifices to God on the threshing floor, prior to the first Temple and not at the location of the Tent of Meeting, but Deut 12 does say that sacrifices are to be made where God chooses so I must assume that the threshing floor was an appropriate location. But the location of the sacrifices should not play a point to the conversation unless the point you are making is that when there is no approved location that it is not to the fault of the Jewish people if all of the commandments cannot be followed. Of course, the ability to follow all of the commandments was lost due to disobedience and failure to follow all of the commandments so I figure that is a touchy argument.
“But the location of the sacrifices should not play a point to the conversation unless the point you are making is that when there is no approved location that it is not to the fault of the Jewish people if all of the commandments cannot be followed. Of course, the ability to follow all of the commandments was lost due to disobedience and failure to follow all of the commandments so I figure that is a touchy argument.”
That is precisely the point, Xander, and at this point you almost have all the pieces of the puzzle. God himself took the temple away from us and in doing so for a long period of time (just as he did for a shorter period of time after the first temple) he is doing exactly what he described in Lev: 26:31 and the sections ins Deut that describe the horrors that will befall the Jewish people for their disobedience. This is not a touchy subject to us. We accept it fully. you only think it is touchy because we do not identify our transgressions as having anything to do with Jesus as you would have us believe.
The last piece of the puzzle is that God promised us repeatedly that even after we spend time exiled, dispersed, persecuted, – and without the opportunity for sacrifice in the temple – that this would not doom us. Rather, it would lead to an eventual and ultimate redemption the centerpiece of which would be a return to old order and the obedience to Gods Torah.
Now Christians may like the notion that that ultimate redemption will be based on acceptance of Jesus, but we prefer to understand it as based on what the Torah says it will be based on, Gods mercy, repentance, and return to obedience to the Torah., Jesus figures nowhere in those scriptural descriptions.
Actually, the exchange above relates much more to the fact that I felt there was a continual attempt to pull verses out of context and pretend that “other paths to atonement” were REALLY just the same as Yom Kippur. Of could they weren’t; the way Hashem (not man) presented Yom Kippur was as a yearly blood atonement to be completely separate from all of the other personal atonements. And I have stated over and over that I certainly agree there were many non-blood atonements. Of course there were. But those did NOT equate to or replace Yom Kippur.
While I can see why you would view my response as an attempt to justify my own position, I think you are completely misreading it. I was pointing to CONTEXT. You cannot pull a verse out of nowhere and claim that it proves something contradictory to G-d’s own Holy Day of Atonement, established by Himself. The fact is, at the time of all of these other atonements that have been mentioned, all of Israel already knew that Yom Kippur was to occur “for all sin” and “for all time,” as Scripture says – and it was already happening. And I’m not referring to a verse out of nowhere that discusses food topics, either. I’m referring to an entire chapter devoted entirely to ONE sacrifice – the Holy Day for all of Israel – as the chapter preceding Leviticus 17:11. This most holy of sacrifices had nothing whatsoever to do with the personal, individual atonements (many non-blood) that people were to bring throughout the year IN ADDITION TO this most important sacrifice (to which G-d devoted far more text in the Tanakh than any three or more sacrifices together).
You cannot pull a verse out of nowhere and pretend it proves something. (I am referring to quoting Exodus 30:15 while ignoring the CONTEXT – Exodus 30:10 – just five verses earlier. I am also referring to quoting a verse about people of their own volition bringing a one-time offering in the context of a battle while ignoring G-d’s commands, throughout the entire preceding section of Scripture in Numbers 31:28-50, regarding what was to be His portion…and the obvious fact that this context had nothing whatsoever to do with Yom Kippur.)
Do these verses about atonement have significance? Of course they do. But do they equate to the same thing as the Holy Day of Atonement, which was established completely separate from and in addition to the many other kinds of atonements? No. As shown outright in Exodus 30:10-15, Yom Kippur was ALREADY to be in place (Exodus 30:10) before the personal atonements (Exodus 30:15). These personal, individual atonements for the soul (and for personal sins) did not in any way replace G-d’s clear establishment of Yom Kippur. No. These were separate, personal issues.
Context does matter. And the context of the Holy Day of Atonement – the only day of its kind for Israel – most certainly matters.
You said (below): “It clearly doesn’t matter how many verses from the Tanach you will be shown to clarify the teaching that blood is not a requisite for atonement. You will read Lev 17:11 as you see fit because it fits your christian theology.”
This issue has nothing to do with me reading Leviticus 17:11 as I see fit; in fact, had G-d not given us that verse at all, I would see nothing as having changed about G-d’s provisions or establishment of the CONTEXT of that verse to begin with – which is the entire preceding chapter about the Holy Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16). What is disturbing is the apparent desire to nullify the importance of what G-d Himself established by pretending “all these other atonements” were really just the same thing as Yom Kippur. They weren’t. G-d certainly desires obedience – and repentance, and humility, and love. Yet having ALREADY GIVEN THE LAW and having ALREADY GIVEN INSTRUCTIONS FOR PERSONAL ATONEMENTS, He STILL established Yom Kippur in addition to all of those things, and established it “for all time” (see the entire chapter of Leviticus 16). He STILL knew we would fail in obeying the commands He had already given – or Yom Kippur wouldn’t have been necessary in the first place. And He STILL said that HE is the one who provided the blood to atone for our souls. This was not what man should provide, or what man might decide to bring. It was HIS own provision.
I agree with you that I didn’t state my thoughts clearly in my first response, and I apologize for that. However, the bottom line is that throughout the entire Tanakh, in all of the many discussions of the other atonements, Yom Kippur was already a given. You quoted Leviticus 17:10-12 as the context of Leviticus 17:11…but what about Leviticus 17:1-9? And what about the entire preceding chapter?
There were certainly many, many non-blood atonements, all throughout Scripture. Yet they were to occur in addition to, and not in replacement of, that which Hashem established “for all sin…for all time” – Yom Kippur.
Thanks, for your most recent reply. So let me see if I can crystalize where we are, and in doing I’ll start with a quote from your last post.
“Actually, the exchange above relates much more to the fact that I felt there was a continual attempt to pull verses out of context and pretend that “other paths to atonement” were REALLY just the same as Yom Kippur”.
The balance of your lengthy post more or less just repeats this point several times.
So then lets be clear.
The only reason we continue to point to other scriptures dealing bloodless atonement is to make the point that atonement exists outside of blood.And while you personally seem to agree with this, there are a great many christians who do not. So its good that we can put that issue aside. It would seem that you more or less accept this point so long as we don’t don’t diminish the special of significance of Yom Kippur
Guess what? I agree.
Yom Kippur IS (present tense) inescapably special. The day itself is specially designated for comprehensive atonement as per Lev 16:30 No one ever claimed that anything was the SAME as Yom Kippur. No sane Jew denies this. Moreover, the focus on Yom Kippur as some kind of polemical point in support of Christianity is particularly curious, given that it is only Jews who continue to observe Yom Kippur to this day by refraining from prohibited work and “afflicted our souls” by fasting which are both “permanent statutes” as per Lev 16:29-31 and by Lev 23:23-32 where in a span of 10 verses the requirements to refrain from work and fast are repeated again three times each as permanent statutes. So given your commitment to taking scripture at its face value, that should be important to you.
Ah but what about the blood service of Yom Kippur, which as you keep pointing out is also described as a permanent feature of Yom Kippur, . Well that brings us back to another point we have already broached and is worth repeating. You have previously acknowledged that Ezekiel for example, while in Babylonian exile (along with countless other holy Jews who were born lived and died during in that period) lived in the absence of the Yom Kippur blood services. So in at least that sense, it wasn’t as permanent as you suggest. Yet Ezekiel didn’t ask himself how our nation can escape eternal damnation without the Yom Kippur blood service .Instead he talked about repentence and restoration.
I’ll tell what you what though, you can be pretty darn sure that Ezekiel continued ,
to fast every Yom Kippur. You know why? Because he understood that the Torah described – indeed predicted – that history would have cycles and that part of that cycle would be periods of time where not every aspect of prescribed ritual could be performed including blood sacrifices. And that just as the Jewish people didn’t have the Yom Kippur blood service until the second Yom Kippur after they left Egypt (and over a year after Sinai) after the Tabernacle had been constructed, there would be other times when the holy-of holies would not exist and thereby prevent the performance of these rituals .
He understood that this meant that were experiencing a period of punishment for our sins (as Jews understand today) and that one day – when God sees fit – we would be reinstated to our former glory with all its trappings including the Yom Kippur blood service, Because it is INDEED PERMANENT AND EVERLASTING. While Eziekel understood that this permanent ritual prescription may not always be practicable, he never dared so much as hint that it would ever be replaced by something alien,and utterly unscriptural
And neither do we..
Thank you for your reply. 🙂 You are right – we do agree on several points, I see, if I understand you correctly:
1. Yom Kippur is the Holy Day of Atonement in a category all its own, completely separate from all the other personal atonements mentioned in the Bible. Its establishment, unlike any other atonement, was to atone “for all sin…for all time.”
2. Many other forms of atonements (personal atonements or atonement for specifics kinds of sins…even atonements and personal gifts also listed throughout Scripture) ALSO existed. These were in addition to, and not to replace, Yom Kippur.
What continues to be disturbing is why there seems to be a perpetual attempt to diminish the importance of the blood aspect of sacrifice. Yes – other things were certainly part of worship and repentance. Absolutely. But what is the purpose of continually attempting to point out that the blood really “isn’t necessary for atonement” and explaining away the role of the blood (which is specifically stated many times throughout Lev. 16)? Why this great effort to argue that substitutionary atonement never existed when Leviticus 16 clearly says it does (both for unintentional sins AND willful transgressions)?
Leviticus 16:21-22. “And Aaron shall lean both of his hands [forcefully] upon the live he goat’s head and confess upon it all the willful transgressions of the children of Israel, all their rebellions, and all their unintentional sins, and he shall place them on the he goat’s head, and send it off to the desert with a timely man. The he goat shall thus carry upon itself all their sins…”
Again, I do not in any way argue against other kinds of atonements, or against the necessity of a right heart before G-d. For example, have I not pointed out myself various times that even these blood sacrifices of Yom Kippur – without a heart of repentance and humility – equate to nothing more than dead animals? Ah – but am I contradicting what G-d said in Leviticus 16:21, where He said this atoned for ALL sin, even willful transgressions? No – because this atonement, though it atoned for the sin problem in general, did not necessarily change the heart, which was a personal matter.
You said: “You have previously acknowledged that Ezekiel for example, while in Babylonian exile (along with countless other holy Jews who were born lived and died during in that period) lived in the absence of the Yom Kippur blood services. So in at least that sense, it wasn’t as permanent as you suggest. Yet Ezekiel didn’t ask himself how our nation can escape eternal damnation without the Yom Kippur blood service .Instead he talked about repentance and restoration.”
1. I am not the one who “suggested” that Yom Kippur was permanent. Those were Hashem’s Words, directly from Leviticus 16.
2. My concern is not that Yom Kippur is not practiced today – or that would not be my concern if it were just yesterday or last year or a few years ago that the Temple had been destroyed. My concern is the seeming LACK of concern for reestablishing it. For all the sadness I hear about the lack of ability to practice it today, I hear much more about explaining away the blood aspect and justifying “why” it isn’t required for atonement than I do plans to reestablish this most Holy Day established by Hashem Himself and the blood sacrifices listed therein. Whom have you personally contacted with regard to rebuilding the Temple? Where are the groups of people seeking for ways to reestablish Yom Kippur exactly as it was detailed in Leviticus 16?
3. Certainly Ezekiel and Daniel were not able to practice Yom Kippur, at least for a time. Yet the recorded, Scriptural thoughts of both were directed toward that end – Ezekiel in speaking of the glorious day when it would again be performed, and Daniel in foreseeing the terrible day when sacrifices would cease.
Excellent ! We are indeed getting closer to the isolating the issue.
But first a few brief responses to your last post:
“Why this great effort to argue that substitutionary atonement never existed when Leviticus 16 clearly says it does”
I don’t mean to be snide, but do you have a reading impairment? How can you possibly have read my last post and come away thinking that I am suggesting that blood atonement “never existed”. What I have now said in at least six different posts is that of course it existed but God himself placed limits on our ability to practice it.
” I am not the one who “suggested” that Yom Kippur was permanent. Those were Hashem’s Words, directly from Leviticus 16.”
Again, did you or didn’t read my last post. I have continually acknowledged the fact that Hashem’s words describe Yom Kippur as permamnent. But I’ve also asked you another question now at least three times that you refuse to answer. The question again: Yes Hashem describes Yom Kippur as permanent but Hashem also recorded is his Tanach – already in biblical times a period – a period of several decades when the Yom Kippur blood WERE NOT PERFORMED.( And he did not say there could only be one such period of any particular length.)So does that or doesn’t that require that you explain how God could have called those services permanent and still allowed into his biblical canon a description of a period of time when prophets themselves lived in a world when the service would be interrupted was not performed.
The closest think I can glean from your comments as to an answer to this is that perhaps you don’t deny that Hashem could call it “permament” and still allow for it to be temporarily suspended, but that your real concern is that it’s one thing for a few decades to go by but 2,000, well that’s that’s different as you go on to articulate in the following quotes :
“My concern is the seeming LACK of concern for reestablishing it”
Please forgive me, but the utter gall of this remark is beyond description. It is christianity and only christianity that has completely eliminated any concern whatsoever for the reestablishment of the Yom Kippur service you claim to be so concerned about. As I mentioned in another post we pray for it daily. You may not care for that method of expressing our concern but that’s your problem.”
” Whom have you personally contacted with regard to rebuilding the Temple?”
God. Most recently at about 6:45 this morning.
“Where are the groups of people seeking for ways to reestablish Yom Kippur exactly as it was detailed in Leviticus 16?
In synagogues all over the world.
You seem to think it that simple a matter. Let me pose but one of many issues that currently stand in the way of rebuilding the temple…You see there is this little problem. Right now, on the spot in which we would like to have the temple – in the place designated by God – there is currently a 1300 year old mosque. I have a sneaky suspicion that its proprietors would not be very agreeable to being contacted by Cohen and Cohen Realtors with a proposition to buy it, and tear it down so we can build the temple. Although I’m open to any ideas…
But enough sarcasm.
So in summary, I think we’ve accomplished a lot
– We agree atonement exists without blood
– We agree that despite that, their is irreplacable significance of Yom Kippur in the scheme of atonement.
– We agree that Yom Kippur including its blood services is described as “permament”
– And – I think – we agree that despite God having used the word “permanent” to describe the Yom Kippur blood services, he also makes clear in his own Holy Torah that there can be suspensions of the practice of these blood rituals.
Where it seems our remaining disagreement lies, is that you think there is a substantive difference between the several decade suspension in the time of Ezekiel and the now near 2,000 year suspension of today. And that the sheer length of that period of time must mean that God had some other plan for understanding the word “permament”.- a radically different program.
Well, you are entitled to that opinion, but you know as well as I do that it is nowhere to be found in Tanach.
Hi again, Yehuda,
Indeed I do not have a reading impairment. 🙂 Let me explain what I was referring to in my comment that it was Hashem and not I who “suggested” that Yom Kippur is permanent.
You had said (in the post before my last reply): “So in at least that sense, IT WASN’T AS PERMANENT AS YOU SUGGEST” [emphasis mine, to explain what I was responding to].
To respond to another question, in this latest post, you responded to my comment as follows:
Me: “Why this great effort to argue that substitutionary atonement never existed when Leviticus 16 clearly says it does?”
You: “I don’t mean to be snide, but do you have a reading impairment? How can you possibly have read my last post and come away thinking that I am suggesting that blood atonement “never existed”.
If you carefully read what I commented there in the first place, you will see that we obviously miscommunicated here, because I was not referring to the blood atonement (yes, I know you believe the blood atonement existed, obviously). I was specifically referring to SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT, and in referring to the great efforts to argue against it, I was referring to arguments in general, not just to our specific, recent discussion. I have indeed heard lengthy arguments saying that supposedly such a concept is completely contrary to any Scripture, citing Ezekiel 18 as “proof” that substitutionary atonement is impossible. (Obviously, that chapter is dealing with something else altogether – with the blaming of family members for a person’s own sin, with G-d saying Israel was quoting a proverb relating to this topic.) In any case, if you reread my post, you will see that I was referring to what I “generally hear” – and that is NOT plans to reestablish Yom Kippur or any great discussions about its importance, but rather arguments AGAINST its importance, against the significance of these blood atonements as G-d established them, and against the concept of substitutionary atonement. In considering those arguments in general, I mentioned Leviticus 16:21-22, which clearly demonstrates substitutionary atonement (again, I was not referring to the blood sacrifice but rather to the concept of substitutionary atonement).
Finally, you said:
“But I’ve also asked you another question now at least three times that you refuse to answer. The question again: Yes Hashem describes Yom Kippur as permanent but Hashem also recorded is his Tanach – already in biblical times a period – a period of several decades when the Yom Kippur blood WERE NOT PERFORMED.( And he did not say there could only be one such period of any particular length.)So does that or doesn’t that require that you explain how God could have called those services permanent and still allowed into his biblical canon a description of a period of time when prophets themselves lived in a world when the service would be interrupted was not performed.”
Yes indeed – G-d certainly does say that Yom Kippur was permanent and yet there were periods of time when prophets lived in a world when the service was interrupted. I am sorry I must have missed that question before (I thought I responded to that in another post by responding that – yes, those prophets indeed were unable to perform Yom Kippur, but unlike what I hear today, THOSE prophets did indeed place immense importance on it. That is the difference I see).
I am not saying YOU do not place great significance on Yom Kippur, the blood atonements listed therein, and the clear concept of substitutionary atonement that G-d provided therein (Leviticus 16:21-22) – but I have to honestly say that in general I hear very little about its significance or about the desire to reestablish it. And I have spoken with many, many rabbis. Rather I hear lengthy speeches about why it isn’t necessary for atonement, about the “many paths” there are to atonement, about the blood being unnecessary, and so forth. I’m sorry, but that simply isn’t the attitude the prophets had.
Thanks again for talking the time to respond.
I continue to be gratified by the substantive way in which I think our exchange has allowed for the increasing focus on precisely where we differ.
If I may, as I usually do, let me quote what I believe to be the substance of your last post.
“Yes indeed – G-d certainly does say that Yom Kippur was permanent and yet there were periods of time when prophets lived in a world when the service was interrupted. I am sorry I must have missed that question before (I thought I responded to that in another post by responding that – yes, those prophets indeed were unable to perform Yom Kippur”…
I’m glad we are clear on this, because it is very important to understand that the prophets themselves did not see the interruption of this service as contradictory to its scripturally described “permanence”. How could they? It was the reality. They understood that exile is a scripturally described state in which such interruptions can and will occur and that it does not in any way spell eternal damnation for those living through it nor does it in any way translate into a need to look for anything other than an eventual restoration of the original order. And that is precisely the mode Jews view themselves in today.
“.. but unlike what I hear today, THOSE prophets did indeed place immense importance on it That is the difference I see).I am not saying YOU do not place great significance on Yom Kippur, the blood atonements listed therein, and the clear concept of substitutionary atonement that G-d provided therein (Leviticus 16:21-22) – but I have to honestly say that in general I hear very little about its significance or about the desire to reestablish it. And I have spoken with many, many rabbis. Rather I hear lengthy speeches about why it isn’t necessary for atonement, about the “many paths” there are to atonement, about the blood being unnecessary, and so forth. I’m sorry, but that simply isn’t the attitude the prophets had.”
I cannot possibly comment on the exchanges you have had with the “many many Rabbi’s”.
I will however speak for myself.
Yes let’s talk about the attitude of the prophets. Let’s talk about the messianic vision they described in such great detail. The world of peace, the clear universal knowledge of the one true God, along with complete restoration of Jewish adherence to ALL of God’s commandments including – but not limited to – every last detail of the Yom Kippur service. This is the vision that every Rabbi I’VE ever met aspires to. Such was the longing of Ezekiel, and other holy Jews when they were not able to perform of all the Torah’s rituals while in exile, and which he described in such immense detail in the final chapters of his book. Such continues to be the longing of Jews today in exile. We will work towards that time described in Deut 4 as coming in the “end of days”. And we will be true to the path that leads there by loyalty to “all” of Gods commandments to best of the ability that God gives us while in the exile in which he placed us; the path He described so clearly in Deut 30 and as the last of the Tanach’s prophets, Malachi, reminded us is his very final words to “Remember ye the law of Moses My servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and ordinances.” .
That is what every Jew wants; the return to the original, authentic, complete, and optimal Torah life.
And as they say in the ads. “Don’t settle for cheap imitations.”.
Until then, please accept my sincere best wishes for peace and your good fortune.
Thanks to you, too, for taking the time to respond. 🙂 I am currently traveling, so I check blogs only when I’m able.
I, too, cannot comment on the rabbis with whom you’ve interacted. I will say that for myself, I have literally heard messages seemingly entirely dedicated to explaining away the blood sacrifice (at which I ask myself whether they have truly studied Yom Kippur, and why they would even WANT to detract from this most holy day – if not able to actually practice it, it seems they should want to at least deeply study, deeply value, and thoroughly know this One Day of Atonement that the LORD G-d of Israel established “for all sin…for all time.”
I can certainly appreciate and ALSO deeply value the immensely joyous day that will one day be during the Messianic Age. I have already commented this in previous posts, but Isaiah is one of my favorite books of the Bible because there is so much there that can be deeply examined and loved in all of those topics. Most people I have heard (Christians and Jews alike) pull a verse out here and there yet do not really study out the themes of sin as it relates to forgiveness, humility as it relates to vindication, and righteousness as it relates to G-d’s intercession on Israel’s behalf, even in her sin. Those themes, among others, warm my heart every time I read them. They show me what my G-d is like, and I learn to love Him through His Word.
I, too, wish you the very best, friend.
@Yehuda– Cheap Imitations? LOL
Sorry that struck me so funny
Can you cite your reference please in referring to “missionaries claim that without blood there is no atonement.” Missionaries is a pretty general term. Not all Christians agree on every detail just as not all Jews agree with your assessments on this blog. So which missionaries are you referring to and under which context is that claimed. Most Christians that I have been in contact with believe that if you simply repent you are forgiven. Context makes all the difference. Rarely if ever have I heard Christians debating or even speaking of issues of blood atonement.
David, if one can simply repent then what was the point of the cross?
The short answer is we Christians believe that to acknowledge God’s Son is to have life in the age to come. To deny him is to forfeit your life in the age to come. We believe that is what God commands all humanity regarding his Son from the time of the cross regardless of your religion.
I think most Christians believe that you can have your sins forgiven today simply by repenting and then sin again and again have them forgiven again and again through sincere repentance. But that won’t have any effect on your life after this one. What governs your future life, whether you have one or not, is whether you acknowledge God’s Son or not.
Will Jesus know all those who preach Jesus & yet “do wrong to others” ? Will he know all those who preach, but do “not do”?
If your brother (sister) who knows Jesus, but Jesus does not know them, was it not better that they “never knew” him? Are you your siblings keeper, and what is your obligations to those lost souls who say they “believe” in Jesus, but do not?
David wrote “we Christians believe that to acknowledge God’s Son is to have life in the age to come. To deny him is to forfeit your life in the age to come. ”
Can you show one verse in all of Tanakh that shows that G-d will establish a “gate” called messiah, that unless we have a “faith or belief” in him we forfeit the world to come?
G-d at Sinai, established no such gate. Only Himself and said to “do and obey”. There was never a “plan B” to add a god-man gate.
What was the point of the “Prodigal Son” parable? What was the point of the many statements found within Holy Scripture (Torah & by the Prophets of God) about repentance and atonement that required no blood nor any human or god sacrifice?
In response to your 3 posts:
We Christians believe that Jesus knocks and is always knocking, and if you choose to hear and choose to open the door then He will enter and commune with you and you’ll know Him. Each person has freedom of choice not to open the door. Nothing is forced on anyone, Jesus never opens the door. It’s not a question of preaching or not preaching or doing or not doing.
If you mean however, that once you’ve answered the call and accepted Jesus into your heart, acknowledging him as God’s Son, and your Lord and Savior, and then after that you go and sin, will Jesus still be with you, the answer is yes. Once you have Jesus you’ll always have Jesus. Simply repent and you are forgiven.
How you act, each and everything you do and say will be counted for you or against you in the age to come in your eternal life. One way to look at it is once you accept Jesus you’ll have eternal life in the age to come but the quality of that life depends at least in part on how you act in this one.
We Christians believe that it is not a question of whether or not Jesus “knows” us. He knows everyone that is, was, and ever will be. The only question of whether or not you know Jesus, not whether He knows you.
We are all lost souls without Jesus. And we are the keepers of the entire world, including all the lost souls as we all once were and those who are saved.
Our obligation to everyone is to inform them and then it is their choice what to do about it.
That God loves us and is always willing to take us back whenever we are willing to come back. Regarding blood and sacrifice we believe that God does what He chooses for various reasons. Sometimes He has used sacrifice, sometimes not, sometimes blood sometimes not, it all depends on the purpose.
There are some who say “once saved always saved”, but some Church leaders disagree. I have seen many go to the altar and accept Jesus several times, because to them “salvation didn’t stick”. One of my questions in particular was about Matthew 7:21-23 (Luke 6:43-46) “Not everyone who keeps saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will get into the kingdom of heaven, but only the person who keeps doing the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, we prophesied in your name, drove out demons in your name, and performed many miracles in your name, didn’t we?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you evildoers!'”. So mighty servants of the lord can be evil doers and can lead many astray. Shouldn’t your priority be to prevent brother & sister believers losing their salvation & being an example to others to follow? And let grace work for others, who only God can call? Luke 17:3-4. “Watch yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. Even if he sins against you seven times in a day and comes back to you seven times and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”
Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?”
He said to them, “Keep on struggling to enter through the narrow door, because I tell you that many people will try to enter, but won’t be able to do so. After the homeowner gets up and closes the door, you can stand a outside, knock on the door, and say again and again, ‘Lord, open the door for us!’ But he will answer you, ‘I don’t know where you come from.’ Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ But he will tell you, ‘I don’t know where you come from. Get away from me, all you evildoers!’
Stick arround, we get all kinds of beliefs here.
Dear David; The Biblical David made the same mistake you just did; he assummed that his way is OK, without making sure. G-d told His people what He wants us to accept. Jesus as in anyway divine or messiah or whatever is opposite of what G-d told us. So remember, G-d is in charge. He told us how to expiate our sins; not with blood.(It is wriitted that a handful of grain will be as good as a bullock on the Alter of G-d. Also, if Jesus, whose words show he was not G-d, or he would have known what G-d does, cannot be any more a soulsaver, than the other 40 messiahs wantta bes, whom were crusified around the same time. Also, if Jesus made your sins forgiven by his blood, I wonder why there is still suffering in the world. In the Gospels, Jesus told his followes that in their life times, they would see what the messiah shall do. OK. Make it so.
Zoroaster was conceived by the Holy Spirit by their Sacred book (The Spirit of Arua Mezda entered the womb of his mother, and he was conceived as a son of the Good God. Hummm
And Khrushna, of the Hindus? His family had to get out of dodge fast, because the king was on the waspath, as we read of the birth of Jesus. Also, they have the Trimutri. Makes more since, as your way we do not know where the dividing line between one part of the trinity is, and/or the other.
There are others, but you get the picture. G-d happens to be the best artist, so i shall follow Him.
We Christians also believe that God is in charge as you correctly stated which is why we obey Him. He told us to listen to His Son. And that’s why we listen and obey His Son, because we first listen and obey God.
As far as forgiveness of sins as such there is no special requirement other than sincere repentance. And I think that’s the way most Christians view it as well.
Christians don’t put much emphasis on blood as I’ve stated in earlier posts. There might be confusion on the part of some Christians and non-Christians what blood symbolizes. Christ is not associated with sacrifices as such except for the Passover sacrifice of the lamb. Blood itself is not a requirement for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus also used the analogy of His blood which was poured out for the many for the covenant; so that whoever believes in Him shall have everlasting life. As you know, sometimes God uses blood for various purposes and sometimes not.
Jesus never promised an easy Christian life for believers, rather just the opposite.
Pagans and others have been copying and altering scripture prophesies for centuries to conform to their religions and culture. It doesn’t mean that the scripture isn’t true just because someone else uses some or all of it. In fact you believe the same regarding Christians using “your” scripture to describe Christian beliefs which you believe are in error. Many cultures speak of a catastrophic Flood in one form or another for example. It doesn’t mean it was a fantasy. But rather it could mean they heard the story and changed it to conform to their situation.
The virgin birth was prophesied. Although you may not agree with the prophesy, or believe it doesn’t speak to a virgin birth, many others believe that is exactly what it means. And as far back as Gen. 3:15 the “seed” of the “woman” was prophesied and emphasized which if not unique is rare to say the least. In every other case or nearly every other case when “seed” is spoken of in the bible it refers to the seed of a man. So it is only natural that others would pick up on this special occurrence and emphasis spoken of in the bible regarding the “seed” of the woman and tailor the story to their own culture.
The virgin birth was not prophesied. — If you read all of Isaiah 7 , it is about a past event during King Ahaz and the “sign” given was not the state of pregnancy. It had nothing to do with Jsus.
The seed of the woman is merely her descendants. Not “a” person. Paul is totally off base with his seed and seeds commentary. Nobody says “seeds” when referring to a vast plurality. When you go to the store to buy a bag of grass “seed” you dont get one in a the bag! You get millions! When a farmer replants his field, he does so by purchasing “seed” for his planting.
“He” will stike your head… so your wrong on that one. And as for prophesies who says they can’t pertain to more than one event? So wrong again.
David– Lets look a little closer…. You wrote: ““He” will stike your head”
Okay the church says this serpent is Satan…right? Well look what it says:
14 The Lord God said to the serpent,…..And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between YOUR SEED and her seed;
So Satan has a child(ren)? This passage has nothing to do with Jsus and Satan.
You wrote: “who says they can’t pertain to more than one event?”
So there was two virgin births? Who was the original virgin? What happened to that original god-man? Why does Tanakh not record such an event? You are actually okay with god getting a mortal woman pregnant? In the case of Mary, a married woman? Giving her the appearance of fornication, adultery? Putting her life in danger?
This is no different than Zeus having relations with mortal women. Other than the NT “sanitizes” it by saying the HS did it and not a physical god. What the church proposes is an anachronistic revelation.
G-d has brought us away from polytheism. G-d has brought us away from human sacrifice, god-men, god-mortal women pregnancies, sacred meals (communion) and what does the church do? Gives us a retrograde revelation bringing back those very things G-d said NOT to do and believe!
In over 50+ years I noticed one consistency with Christians; they have to go the opposite way of G-d. He said He has no father, nor does He have a son, but David stated that they (the Christians who accept this iterpretation) obey G-d, and His son which He said He does not have,
No wonder thinking human beings, wo were born into the Christian faith, are converting to either the Noahidefaith, or to Judaism. Every post I read on the subject says that at least 10, 000 Christians a year convert to Judaism.
So, David, your fellow Christians are voting with their Souls, coming to a -d that they can trust, reather than a remake of the Pagan, with Torah mis-translations thrown in. I also am sadden by the un-Christian way you all treat each other; Protestants, for example, point at Catholics and say they are not Christian. But, wo was it who kept the faith of Christianity going in Europe for 1500 years, while others including Muslims were having such success? Your “true” Christians did not come on the scene until Martin Luther, who did not want to leave the Church, but had to outof self defence.
Your anti-Jewish mis-translations have backfired, thanks to the fact that Hebrew manuscripts, dating to the3rd century BCE are still with us, You owe all a sincere apoligy.
Yechiel Shlipshon ben Levi
It appears that some people use Torah and the prophets to base their faith in the teachings of the Torah and those same prophets. While others use the Torah and those same prophets to promote teachings there are outside of the Torah and those prophets and are often contradictory to the Torah and those prophets. Is the blood of swine or of a serpent or of a human or of a god acceptable blood offerings according to the Torah or the Hebrew prophets? Is blood acceptable for our atonement when an enemy is the one “offering up” the blood? Doesn’t “Nefesh” mean something more than or something other than “soul”, as we often believe “soul” to be defined?
And this is not mentioned as atonement, but in the NT (always bringing) praise, doing good, and being generous is called sacrifices that God is pleased with. Hebrews 13:15-16, “Therefore, through him let us always bring God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of our lips that confess his name. Do not neglect to do good and to be generous, for God is pleased with such sacrifices.” However, the blood-less sacrifice is not offered directly to God, but through an intermediary (“through him”, “confess his name”). Is this somewhat similar to praying through the intercessor, Mary, “mother of God”?
Yes and no. You can offer to Jesus or directly to God. What’s the problem with something mentioned in the NT but not in the OT? Didn’t later prophets mention things that weren’t said before, or explain things in more detail than previously?
It is not so much as what is mentioned as it is with the contradiction with what was accepted as Holy Scripture before. My point about the Hebrews quote is that there are some who ignore, downplay, or even reject certain teachings in the Hebrew Bible, because it does not fit in with their personal beliefs, in particular about atonement or repentance, based on how they read certain verses in the NT. If there is a contradiction with the original, something is wrong with the foundation or with what Man has added on. This is not about refinement or clarification or improvement or “filling in the gaps” with new ideas revealed that are compatible with the old. The prophets of the Hebrew Bible said repentance-atonement can be accomplished without “blood”, but some want to reject the “word of God”. So they need to be reminded that the NT sometimes echoes the OT and so the arguments made by Jews from their Scriptures can also be made by verses found in Christian Scripture.
“In the book of Jonah the prophet witnesses God’s mercy when God forgives the Ninevites on the occasion of their repentance.”
I was rereading Jonah and noticed that nowhere does it actually say the God forgave them. He relented of the impending punishment, but is that the same as forgiveness?
Study notes on Jonah 3.6, “Covered… with sackcloth, sat in ashes, which were traditional acts of repentance in response to personal and national crises; see Job 42. 6.”. Jonah 3:8-10
“They shall be covered with sackcloth– man and beast– and shall cry mightily to God. Let everyone turn back from his evil ways and from the injustice of which he is guilty. Who knows but that God may turn and relent? He may turn back from His wrath, so that we do not perish”. “God saw what they did, how they were turning back from their evil ways. And God renounced the punishment…”
In my Hebrew Bible, the word “forgive” is only explicitly mentioned 25 times, so does forgiveness have little to do with “renouncing punishment”, “crying mightily to God”, “turning back from evil ways (or Teshuvah) and injustice”, “carrying out acts of repentance”? The “forgiveness” may have only been temporary, but you almost sound like Jonah in Chapter 4 complaining about God’s graciousness and compassion.
Strange, like Jonah, some will complain against God in Torah & the Hebrew prophets writings, because it does not square with their wishes, their “theology”.
April 7, 2013 at 4:56 pm
“There are some who say “once saved always saved”, but some Church leaders disagree. I have seen many go to the altar and accept Jesus several times, because to them “salvation didn’t stick”. One of my questions in particular was about Matthew 7:21-23 (Luke 6:43-46) “Not everyone who keeps saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will get into the kingdom of heaven, but only the person who keeps doing the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, we prophesied in your name, drove out demons in your name, and performed many miracles in your name, didn’t we?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you evildoers!’”. So mighty servants of the lord can be evil doers and can lead many astray. Shouldn’t your priority be to prevent brother & sister believers losing their salvation & being an example to others to follow? And let grace work for others, who only God can call? Luke 17:3-4. “Watch yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. Even if he sins against you seven times in a day and comes back to you seven times and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”
April 7, 2013 at 5:17 pm
Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?”
He said to them, “Keep on struggling to enter through the narrow door, because I tell you that many people will try to enter, but won’t be able to do so. After the homeowner gets up and closes the door, you can stand a outside, knock on the door, and say again and again, ‘Lord, open the door for us!’ But he will answer you, ‘I don’t know where you come from.’ Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ But he will tell you, ‘I don’t know where you come from. Get away from me, all you evildoers!’”
Regarding “saved”, the vast majority of Christians believe once saved always saved. All believe (I think) that anyone can sin including Christians. I don’t think it is taught anywhere that Christians don’t sin. If anyone leads anyone else to sin whether or not he or she is a Christian then that person leading the other to sin is sinning a bigger sin. This was the complaint Jesus had with Pharisees.
Regarding the rest of both posts: What Jesus is describing is a form of hypocrisy in my opinion. Hypocrisy can take many forms including: those who say but don’t do, as well as those who do but don’t believe in what they do. Therefore, those who ate and drank with Jesus, proclaimed many things and performed miracles in his name etcetera but didn’t sincerely believe are hypocrites and aren’t fooling Jesus or God, because Jesus and God know the hearts of all men. Therefore they will rightly be denied eternal life.
There is a difference between those who may commit a sin (less than perfect) & “evil-doers”. And the OT agrees that the “wicked” can repent & be righteous. Many of the teachings of the Pharisees were the teachings of Jesus as well. And some believed Jesus was a hypocrite because he was not consistent (at least as he is presented in the NT passed down to us through the hands of persons, who may or may not have been some of those hypocrites). But Jesus said it was a struggle and MANY won’t be able to go through the “narrow door”. And in the meantime, he allows evil-doers to perform MANY miracles in his name and drive out demons in his name (that could include Paul & some apostles or at least those of their stature?). Very few, if any, of those “evil-doers” believe that they are not saved. Almost none (of those you suggest are hypocrites), believe they are leading people to sin, but instead to salvation. Most believe in Jesus with all their heart, mind, & soul. God knows their heart and that is why Jesus gave them the power to act & speak in the name of Jesus. Even in the gospels, we see Jesus allows some who are not with him, not his disciples, say & do things in his name, with the idea that he will get the credit (or blame) and that they couldn’t do those things for long (maybe they will get saved for real, eventually?). But certain heresies have lasted for centuries “in the name of Jesus”. So who, doing great things in the name of Jesus, can you trust or are they all hypocrites, since you put your faith in men or women? Who are the wolves who speak and act like sheep? How can you tell? Can you go with what the “vast majority” believes, because the many can & will be deceived? And the many can’t get through the narrow door/gate & then walk the narrow path.
The same can be said of Jews, so what’s your point? Evil doing Jews perform so called miracles in God’s name is that God’s fault? Of course not just as it’s not the fault of Jesus. And are you responsible because of some evil doing Jew acts on his own.
Don’t evil doing Jews think they are saved?
I’ve already said there are no perfect Christians, but the path is clear and we keep trying to please God. Jesus shows us the way. God taught Jesus and Jesus teaches us because he pleased God completed by perfectly following His will.
Some evil doers are Jews and some evil doers are Christians and some only claim to be. So what’s the point?
The point is that you show that Jesus is just another “evil doing Jew performing so-called miracles in God’s name and his own” that he was mainly acting on his own as one who was not anointed. In anger that God did not provide him with miraculous fruit, he cursed a tree and so he soon symbolically became dead fruit hanging on that tree?
Saved, shmaved. I don’t care. Let me just walk humbly with my G-d.
If I were to consider giving my life to Jesus, then I’d also have to consider doing the same for the other mythical gods. In fact, perhaps even more so, as they all predated Jesus so they’d more likely be the authentic gods. Let’s see here… we’ll compare:
KRISHNA: Lived from 3228 BCE to 3102 BCE, roughly 3,000 years before Jesus.
1) Virgin birth: Krishna was born without a sexual union, by “mental transmission” from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki, his mother.
2) Divine: Krishna was called both “God” and “the Son of God”.
3) Krishna was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
4) Krishna was called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
5) Krishna’s adoptive human father was also a carpenter. A spirit or ghost was his actual father.
6) Krishna was visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
6) His parents were issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination.
7) Both Jesus’ and Krishna’s parents fled. While Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna’s parents stayed in Mathura.
8) Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as an adult, and fasted.
9) Krishna was known as “the seed of the woman bruising the serpent’s head.”
10 Just as Jesus was called “the lion of the tribe of Judah.” Krishna was called “the lion of the tribe of Saki.”
11) Krishna claimed “I am the Resurrection.”
12) He was also “without sin.”
13) Krishna was known as a god-man, being considered both human and divine.
14) Krishna performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both Krishna and Jesus performed was to make a leper whole.
15) Krishna cast out indwelling demons and raised the dead.
16) Krishna was considered meek and merciful. He forgave his enemies.
17) Krishna was criticized for associating with sinners.
17) Krishna celebrated a last supper.
18) And last, but by no means least, Krishna was crucified and was resurrected.
Ok. You don’t want to worship Krishna? How about considering ROMULUS? He must be even more authentic than Krishna because he predated Krishna. Romulus lived in the 8th century BCE. While his resume isn’t quite as impressive as Krishna, he was
1) Born of a virgin who was impregnated by the divine.
2) Romulus is hailed as the son of god.
3) Romulus is “snatched away to heaven” and he makes post mortem appearances.
4) There was a darkness covering the earth before his death (Just as there was during Jesus’ death according to Mark 15:33).
5) Romulus was known afterwards as ‘Quirinus’; A god which belonged to the Archiac Triad (a “triple deity” similar to the concept of the Trinity).
Let’s see… DIONYSUS isn’t a bad choice either. He was born in the 12th or 13th century BCE.
1) Dionysus was born of a virgin on December 25 and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger.
2) He was a traveling teacher who performed miracles.
3) He “rode in a triumphal procession on an ass.”
4) Dionysus rose from the dead on March 25.
5) He turned water into wine.
6) Dionysus was called “King of Kings” and “God of Gods.”
7) Dionysus was considered the “Only Begotten Son,” Savior,” “Redeemer,” “Sin Bearer,” Anointed One,” and the “Alpha and Omega.”
8) Dionysys was identified with the Ram or Lamb.
9) His sacrificial title of “Dendrites” or “Young Man of the Tree”, meaning that he was hung on a tree or crucified.
If anyone is interested in more gods to worship, there are plenty more. But I’ll leave it to the top 3 contenders for now.
So Melissa, by your logic, we would also need to discount the creation narratives and that of the flood since similar stories of other religions/cultures predate Genesis? Of course when the very beginning of the Torah starts out as a copy for another religion, how much of it can you truly believe?
Xander, the earliest flood narrative recorded was the Gilgamesh Flood. The earliest Gilgamesh writings date back to c. 2000 BCE. The flood narrative of the Bible occurred 1,656 years from Creation, or in the year 2348 BCE. This predates the Gilgamesh writings by roughly 350 years.
But that’s neither here nor there, because the underlying point is that is being made is that the NT stories about Jesus parallel EXACTLY pagan religions that predate Jesus’ life and ministry. However, the dawn of the Jewish nation is unique among all nations.
There is no other religion that can claim that an entire nation of 2-3 million men, women and children heard AND saw the voice of G-d as the Jews did at the foot of Mt. Sinai, when G-d spoke the 10 Commandments to an ENTIRE nation. That is an unprecedented event that has never before, nor since, been replicated in the history of mankind.
The Jesus story? Not so unique.
So I’m going to go out on a limb here and assert that all of the standard debates about what the Torah claims regarding blood atonement, divinity, virgin birth, resurrection, etc., etc. are completely out of step. Given the obvious pagan origins of the NT narratives, Christianity is not an offshoot of the Jewish religion. It is not a daughter religion. In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with Torah and Judaism at all. (Which is why the term “Messianic Jew” is an oxymoron).
If, however, a person wants to debate whether or not Jesus is G-d, the Son of Man, the Messiah, Savior of mankind or any other title, that is a legitimate argument and I can go with that. But for a Christian to quote Torah passages as proof text? That cannot be. The Christian “Old Testament” and the Torah of the Jews are not the same book.
Melissa33774, simply click on Xanders name and it will take you to his blog. He is christian.
Larry, of course I knew he was Christian lol. I was making the point that he was arguing with me about the authenticity of the Hebrew Scriptures, when he himself believes in it, so what was the point in that, other than to be difficult?
Using Torah as proof, you can date the flood prior to the Gilgamesh flood, but since the tale of Gilgamesh was actually recorded prior to the written account of Genesis, it is debatable as which came first. Of course since the first written account of Romulus appeared in the first century AD, it can be easily debated as to whether the story of Jesus copied the pagan story or not.
You are correct and yet there is no historical proof of the 2-3 million men, women and children even leaving Egypt let alone hearing the voice of God.
It is interesting to see how quickly you can dismiss the Christian tale as coming from pagan origins but I bet you discount the surprising similarities between Judaism and the Canaanite gods. Once again we see written proof of the Canaanites worshipping ‘El’ and ‘Elohim’ prior to written Torah. Historians are even debating on if Abraham and Moses even worshipped the same God. I am sure you will discount those claims as you believe the religion you believe.
I am interested as to what the outstanding differences between Torah and the Christian Old Testament are in your mind?
Xander, are you Christian?
The reason, Xander, that I ask if you are Christian is because I’m not quite getting where you’re coming from. As a Christian I assume you believe the Genesis account, the Creation, the Great Flood, the story of Abraham, the Exodus, so on and so forth. I also assume that you believe that the G-d of the Jews is the 1st person of the Trinity, “G-d the Father” (not to be confused with “the Godfather” lol). If this is so, then the questions you present to me are merely argumentative because you don’t like what I said above about the pagan roots of Christianity. So before we can proceed, I need to know if you believe in the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or if you are a secular historian.
Just to make a note, however, about use of the name “El”, dating back to the Canaanites, they worshiped a pagan deity named “El”. In Hebrew, however, “El” is a title, not a name. They refer to 2 completely different identities. It’s not much different than in English saying “god” vs. “God”. No one would confuse the two identities unless, of course, you were texting, in which case you never know if your supposed to use caps or not. But then again, I guess it would just simply be the truncated “g” as in “omg”. (Just a little humor to lighten up the conversation lol). Nor would someone mistake “G-d the Father” for “the Godfather”. Sounds very similar, but diametrically different. So no, the Canaanite “El” and the Hebrew “El” are not one in the same.
To answer your question about what I see as some of the differences between the two Bibles (Christian vs. Jewish) is very simple, yet very profound. The Torah was originally written in Hebrew and has been transmitted from generation to generation for 3300 years, from Moses until today, unchanged even to the smallest dot. The Christian Bible, however, was not originally written in Hebrew, but came from Greek manuscripts. And then have been re translated over and over and over again. It’s kind of like playing the game “Telephone”. With each translation, the message can be changed slightly. For example, If you take a King James Bible, an NIV Bible, an NIS Bible and a Living Word Bible, they are all different. They have subtle differences depending on the scholarly license of the author, who translates it in the best way he deems possible. Although he does his best to maintain accuracy of the translation, it is still subject to human error.
The Torah, on the other hand, that we read in the Synagogues every week, each and every one are exactly the same. Even down to the smallest dot. Each and every Torah in the world is identical. Every Torah since Moses has been identical. If a scribe prints something incorrectly, even a tiny dot, it can render the entire Torah unusable and it would have to be buried, never to be used, just so that we preserve the authenticity of it. From generation to generation. Forever.
The responsibility of a Torah scribe is greater than that of a brain surgeon. That is no exaggeration. The mind of the scribe needs to be one with the Creator while he is writing. It is not up to human interpretation or input. Every letter is counted. Every white space with no ink on it is accounted for. If two letters are too close together; if there is not enough white space; if there is too much white space; if the crown on top of a single letter is transcribed incorrectly, the parchment is no good and needs to be buried. If there is something wrong with the parchment; if the ink he uses (which he mixes himself) isn’t right; if there’s something wrong with his quill (yes, he uses a quill); if a tiny spot of ink leaks from the quill, the whole thing is no good.
The scribe must prepare himself meticulously before sitting down to write a Torah scroll. He needs to pray. He needs to meditate. He needs to go to the Mikveh and immerse himself ritually to purify himself. If his mind wanders for even a second, the portion he just wrote is no good and needs to be discarded. In fact, it is a prerequisite that every Torah scribe must be married so that he won’t have any impure thoughts while writing. All of this, to preserve the integrity of the Torah.
And this is what has been done for every Torah, every week, every year for 3300 years, whether it be in the United States, Israel, China, India, Zimbabwe… it doesn’t matter. It is meticulously the same.
THEN, when the Torah is unrolled at the Synagogue and the weekly portion is read, there are usually a couple of rabbis standing there reading along with him, so that if he makes a mistake; pronounces a vowel incorrectly, sings the wrong trope; stutters; whatever, they are there to correct him. Even a rabbi who has been doing this for 50 years will have other rabbis right along side of him to catch even the most subtle, almost inaudible, mistake. All to preserve the integrity of the Scriptures.
There are countless numbers of holy men dedicated to learning every tiny nuance of the Torah. For these men, every waking hour of every day is dedicated to learning G-d’s Holy Word. Every single word has deep meaning. Every letter has meaning. Every white space on the parchment has meaning. The way each of the crowns on the letters are crafted, has meaning. Whether a letter is printed larger or smaller, has meaning. If a word is spelled a particular way 100 times, but one time a letter is omitted from that word, that has meaning. It is not merely reading the text.
So when a Christian scholar, or a preacher, or layman gives over his interpretation, it is just that. An interpretation. This is why it is so “easy” to read Jesus into the Old Testament. Because the Old Testament is not the Hebrew Scriptures.
Next time someone wants to argue with a learned rabbi about what his own Scriptures read, he needs to take a step back and understand the meticulous, exacting work that goes into every word of the Hebrew Scriptures and ask himself if he himself, the doubter, has even the tiniest fraction of such credentials as to make an argument.
Yes Melissa, I am a Christian.
I was not trying to be argumentative as much as to display that you seem keen to discount Christianity based on similarities to other religions, but are resistant when it is done to Judaism. While I support the accuracy of the Torah, I also know that the historical sources to back it up are lacking so the basis of defending it rests primarily on faith.
The original source of the OT can be traced back to the Septuagint but most modern translations now go back to the Hebrew/Aramaic texts so their accuracy is fairly stable. You will get differences due to English interpretation as well as the targeted audience, but that is true of the JPS version so Christians are not alone in errors.
As for the consistency of a rabbi, I am assuming you are referring to a rabbi of your own sect as they do not all agree with each other. Like Christianity, Judaism is also splintered into factions and the factions do not always agree. Orthodox and Reformed Jews do not always agree, but we know there were difference factions of Jews in the time we claim Christ existed, so that is not a new development in Judaism.
And there is interpretation in Judaism. Besides the factions, you also have to take into consideration the Mishnah. Talk about a giant book. Filled with page after page of varying opinions on Torah and what was meant. I am sure you probably have one, so you know what I mean.
I do appreciate you sharing your opinion and answering my question though.
Xander, I would like to extend my apologies to you and to everyone who might have taken offense to my comments.
For me to draw a parallel between Christianity and Paganism was totally out of line. I really do believe that Jesus taught many truths that are consistent with Torah. At the same time, there is one camp who believes that the Gospel was embellished on as time went on. It was those embellishments I was focusing on, not attacking Christianity at the core. Unfortunately that did not come across in my comments.
While there is one Truth in the world, often times there are different angles from which to view it. It is here that rabbis differ in opinion. That’s why often times when 2 people have an argument, the rabbi will turn to one and say “You’re right” then turn to the other and honestly say “You are also right.” It sounds neurotic, but it is really true. It is like looking at an optical illusion. When you look at it from a certain angle, it appears one way. Look at it from a different angle, and it looks completely different. So it is with life.
In light of this, I believe that we each have our own mission in life; the Jew his mission, the Gentile his mission and it’s perfectly ok for us to differ. That is how G-d created the world. G-d has assigned different responsibilities to each nation. It is the responsibility of the Jews is to keep 613 Commandments, while the Gentiles are not obligated to do so. That is why when Paul ministered to the Gentiles he told them that there is no need for them to be circumcised, keep kosher, etc. This was not their responsibility to keep.
I think we can all focus on beliefs we do have in common, like there is one Creator in the Heavens above and on the earth below. G-d loves mankind wants to give us the opportunity do “teshuvah”, or repentance. G-d is slow to anger and abundant in love. Because man is created in the image of G-d, we also should have patience with each other and show kindness to one another.
In closing, Xander, I’m asking your forgiveness and the opportunity to do “teshuvah”. Thanks for listening.
I just want to thank you for the clarity and articulation you bring to the table – your posts from April 9th (9:13 and 12:12) are right on the mark
I appreciate the interesting discussions, too. 🙂 However, the exchange above related (for me) much more to the fact that I felt there was a continual attempt to pull verses out of context and pretend that “other paths to atonement” were equivalent to Yom Kippur (the underlying theme that all atonements were really the same). Of could they weren’t the same; the way Hashem (not man) presented Yom Kippur was as a Holy Day of Atonement – one of a kind – to be completely separate from all of the other personal atonements of various kinds.
The primary issue is context. One cannot pull a verse out of nowhere (especially a context that has nothing to do with Yom Kippur) and claim that it proves something. At the time of these other atonements that have been mentioned, all of Israel already knew that Leviticus 16 was to occur “for all sin” and “for all time,” as Scripture says – and it was already happening. As shown outright in Exodus 30:10-15, Yom Kippur was ALREADY to be in place (Exodus 30:10) before the personal atonements (Exodus 30:15).
And the context of Leviticus 17:11 is not just Leviticus 17:10-12 but also 17:1-9. And what about the entire preceding chapter?
There were certainly many, many non-blood atonements, all throughout Scripture. Yet they were to occur in addition to, and not in replacement of, that which Hashem established “for all sin…for all time” – Yom Kippur.
Thank for the very kind words. I’m flattered.
BlasaterApril 9, 2013 at 6:46 pm
“David– Lets look a little closer…. You wrote: ““He” will stike your head”
Okay the church says this serpent is Satan…right? Well look what it says:
14 The Lord God said to the serpent,…..And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between YOUR SEED and her seed;
So Satan has a child(ren)? This passage has nothing to do with Jsus and Satan.”
My reply: Yes, Satan has children (spiritual children) meaning those people who follow the will of their spiritual father. And the spiritual children of Satan includes those Jews who hypocritically acted against the Son of God and conspired to do the will of their father, Satan. On the one hand they acted pious but in reality they plotted evil because they were all sons of the devil.
Blasater also wrote:
“So there was two virgin births? Who was the original virgin? What happened to that original god-man? Why does Tanakh not record such an event? You are actually okay with god getting a mortal woman pregnant? In the case of Mary, a married woman? Giving her the appearance of fornication, adultery? Putting her life in danger?”
You are mistaken on the context of my reply. I wasn’t referring to two virgin births, I was countering the mistaken belief in my reply that prophesies only apply to one event.
You are also mistaken regarding God. He is not physical, so He didn’t have intercourse with Marry. I think it was posted on this blog in the recent past that God doesn’t have a penis; someone on this blog claimed that some rabbi said that in support of his opinion that God is not male. Therefore since both Jews and Christians believe that God is not physical and Jews believe that God is not even male and doesn’t have a penis then it would be impossible to have intercourse.
Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, and for that reason the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.”
So my question for you is why to you favor a fornication interpretation when Christians don’t? Can you find one single Christian who believes in a fornicating God? Do you believe in a fornicating God? Do Jews believe in a fornicating God? If not why would you assume that Christians believe in such? So why say it?
Daivd wrote “My reply: Yes, Satan has children (spiritual children) meaning those people who follow the will of their spiritual father. And the spiritual children of Satan includes those Jews who hypocritically acted against the Son of God and conspired to do the will of their father, Satan. On the one hand they acted pious but in reality they plotted evil because they were all sons of the devil.”
Oh, I see, it is not “literal” when you want it to be…and literal when you want it to be. Did you know the word for “seed” in Hebrew, Zerah is never taken to mean “spiritual” children? Only, literal…This is eisegesis by the church.
YOu wrote:” You are also mistaken regarding God. He is not physical, so He didn’t have intercourse with Marry.”
I said god the holy spirit did. Not the father. But the point is, a human woman got pregnant right? Yes. And did she get pregnant by her physical husband? No. Who got her pregnant? god the holy spirit. So, yes, it is fornication by an entity other than her husband. And adultery. Why else was Joseph going to put her away?
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
She was found with child of the holy ghost..it does not matter a penis was not involved!….that is your god…that is not her husband….and that is not right. It put Mary in the position of being stoned to death!
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privately.
She what a position that put her in? This is pure pagan teaching my friend. You dont see it as fornication because you were raised in this (most likely) and have not thought it through to its logical end. The G-d of Israel does not get women pregnant…ever! That is Grecco-Roman thinking…
Wrong answer, again: It is too often just assumed that the physical relates only to physical, and that the spiritual relates only to the spiritual. In reality that which is in the physical realm is related in one way or another to that which is spiritual and vice a versa. Hence, the Devil’s spiritual children are physical humans, which included for example the chief priests, teachers of the law, and hypocritical Pharisees who master minded and approved of the crucifixion of Jesus. Little did they know that God knew their thoughts and hearts since the beginning of time and incorporated their evil into His plan to save humanity. But just because it was God’s plan to save humanity through the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus doesn’t absolve the evil doers of their guilt.
And regarding fornication, wrong answer … Again as well. You seem to have sex and fornication on your brain. The text doesn’t say God “knew” Mary. Therefore no fornication overtones need be written into the text. Furthermore, I already mentioned that God’s Holy Spirit doesn’t fornicate. Or do you not know that the God of Israel is the God of us all? Was God fornicating when he blew into the nostrils of Adam to give him life? When any child is born with the help of God is God fornicating? When Eve said “I have produced a man with the help of the LORD” what then? Does that mean God knew Eve in a sexual way penetrating her with his imaginary penis which you ascribe to Him. According to your logic then Adam’s penis and sperm were not up to the task since Eve gave God the credit. Are mothers who conceive without sexual intercourse fornicating? So then all in-vitro births are the result of fornication!!!? Rather than God being a fornicator isn’t it more likely that you have injected your own anti-Christian bias and invented the fornication angle to disparage anything Christian?
Read the text the way it’s written and don’t inject fornicating language. “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you…” Where do you get penetration of penis, sperm, etcetera?
You apparently think the power of the Most High is limited. Some things according to your reasoning are just too difficult for God such as causing a miraculous conception and birth of a child without a man. Is anything too hard for the God of the Universe?
You have the right not to believe or believe in a virgin birth, whichever. But it is obvious to me that your emphasis on fornication to justify your non-belief is your own invention and that of like-minded anti-Christian biased people who read what you want into the text to simply discount the vast power of God and put Him in your own little box. God can’t be put in a box.
Read your own Bible…. In response to Moses God said: I am what I am, or I will be what I will be. Show me where it is written that God ever said He can’t or won’t cause a virgin to have a child? You can’t because it’s not there. So your attempt to put God in a box or put words in His mouth is futile.
And regarding paganism and fornication, the Israelites and Judaism have quite a history. Study it before you start throwing stones in a glass house. If I wanted to find a historical basis for your predisposition to erroneously inject paganism and fornication meanings into a text passage I don’t have to go beyond the story of the Israelites and Jews. Think about it.
David, I agree 100% with you that we cannot put G-d in a box. G-d can, and will, do as He pleases and no thing is beyond His reach. And you are correct that the text does not say that G-d “knew” Mary. So let’s go with the idea of Mary giving birth to Jesus through immaculate conception. Not one of us can prove it was not true, so we’ll go with it. Let’s even go as far as to say that Jesus was G-d due to his immaculate conception.
Now the question is, does immaculate conception make Jesus the “Messiah”? According to Jewish tradition, the answer to that is still a resounding “No”. Why? Not because the Jews didn’t like him. It is because he did not fulfill the requirements necessary to be appointed the Messiah. Jewish sources proclaim that Messiah will be 100% human, with a human mother and a human father, conceived and born in the natural way. But even if we disagree on that point, it is still not enough to appoint Jesus as “The” Messiah.
Messiah must accomplish certain tasks, which Jesus did not. Among these tasks includes the in-gathering of the Jewish Exiles to Israel, building the 3rd Temple (the actual, physical Temple, not Jesus’ risen body as the NT interprets it), reestablishing the sacrificial system and ending all wars. As of this date there has not been one person who has fulfilled ANY of these prerequisites. Therefore, the Messiah has not come.
In Judaism our sages taught that there is a candidate for the Messiah in every generation. How do we identify him? There are 3 stages that determine the identity of Messiah. The first stage is to identify him as a “presumed” candidate. Every generation has a “Presumed” Messiah, a candidate that could at any moment, according to G-d’s will, if we are worthy, be anointed King Messiah. If he fulfills the first stage of qualifications, then he can be considered the “Presumptive” Messiah, but not yet “Confirmed”, or King, Messiah.
I think we all agree that In order to be crowned King Messiah, this candidate must first be anointed by G-d. (Messiah means “anointed one”, not merely “savior”). At this point he is then “Confirmed Messiah”. Now here’s where Judaism and Christianity differ: Messiah will not be anointed unless everyone accepts his mantel of leadership. Messiah is a true king, in every sense of the word. A true king cannot lead a people who do not accept his leadership. G-d is a kind father who will not force his children to accept the leadership of someone they don’t want. We’ve had enough of that in our history. Now it’s time for the Jewish nation, and the world at large, to be led by a leader that we universally accept to lead us. And as mentioned above, Jesus was not accepted by everyone, not because of his personality, not because the rabbis didn’t like him, not because he was a political danger, and not even because his teachings were out of line, but because he did not fulfill the requirements necessary to be an everlasting king.
While many people may have thought that Jesus was the “Presumed” Messiah, and MAYBE even “Presumptive” Messiah, he was not “Confirmed” Messiah. He was not universally accepted. He did not fulfill every prophesy. Even if he fulfilled 99.9% of the prophesies, it is not enough. This is why Christians expect a “Second Coming”, when they look forward to Jesus’ return to finish up the task at hand. It is a clear admission to the fact that these prophesies have not been fulfilled. But the overriding majority of Jews believe that the Messiah will complete his job during his natural lifetime and will not need to return a second time to “finish up”.
[On the note of Messiah “returning” to usher in the final Messianic Era, there are some ultra-Orthodox rabbis in our time (although a definite minority) today that believe that the Messiah can come from either the living or the dead. It is alluded to in some Jewish texts, however, with the caviat that this candidate from the dead died a natural death, not assassinated or killed in battle, etc. If a man is put to death by his contemporaries, then he is obviously not accepted as a leader by his people. If he goes down in battle, then he is not strong enough or successful enough to be confirmed Messiah. This is why Bar Kochba lost his status as the Messiah. He went down in battle, which meant that G-d felt that he was not worthy of being “The” Messiah].
So what does this mean for mankind today? Man cannot be forced, cajoled, tricked, threatened, pleaded with, converted to, missionized, or any other method of coercion to accept someone as their leader. This must come from within the heart. G-d does not work via Democracy. Neither does he work within the constructs of a Republic. And He certainly does not try to talk us into anything. He has given us free will. When we are ready, willing AND worthy of accepting the mantel of our King Messiah, G-d will anoint him and we will enjoy an everlasting era of peace and tranquility, and the knowledge of G-d will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea.
May it be fulfilled speedily in our days. Amen.
Actually, the more I think of it, I’m glad you’ve expressed your anti-Christian bias because it highlights not just your anti-Christian bias but more importantly your misunderstanding of what God is. And your misconceptions and biases are not un-common and can and should be used as an example for others regarding the errors of this kind of thinking.
Lessons from Abraham:
I think we can all agree that Abraham was a man of God. He did not question God’s motivations, or God’s commands. He did not judge or condemn God’s commands. He didn’t argue with God on the grounds that God’s commands had overtones or suggestions of paganism or fornication as you are doing here. When God said to Abraham: You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, Abraham didn’t question God. Abraham cut flesh from the penises of all the men and boys of his household that very day including him-self.
Now here’s the point. Why don’t you consider all this talk of a group of people cutting into the male sex organ, mutilating and cutting away foreskin of every penis in the house be fornication as you do with the virgin birth for example? The most likely explanation is because it has been passed down to you by “man” such as hypocritical Pharisees and teachers of the Law. True it is from God but that’s not why you accept it. You accept it because it is passed down to you by man.
The point is if this command (circumcision) had never previously been given and today God came to you or better yet, came to Jesus and gave the command to circumcise the flesh as He gave it to Abraham you’d reject the command as fornication of the male sex organ, and just as you reject Christ as paganism. You reject God’s Word therefore when not supported by traditions of man. You therefore obey man over God.
Another example from Abraham:
God told Abraham to sacrifice his “only” son, which included slaughtering and burning him with fire. Abraham didn’t question God. Abraham didn’t say: hey God that sounds a lot like paganism. Abraham just set out to do as God commanded, to slaughter his son and burn him with fire. He didn’t wait for man to tell him whether it was ok or not or whether it was paganism or fornication. He obeyed God. Whether or not man at that time or later would consider it to be paganism or fornication was irrelevant to Abraham because Abraham listened to God.
Now, you consider that which God has done and commanded regarding Christ to be to be paganism and/or fornication and that which God has done and commanded prior to the time of Christ not to be such. Again, the most likely explanation is that you obey man over God and man has told you what is from God and what is not from God.
David– You wrote “I’m glad you’ve expressed your anti-Christian bias because it highlights not just your anti-Christian bias but more importantly your misunderstanding of what God is. ”
Anti-Christian bias? I prefer to call it a Pro-Torah or Pro-Tanakh bias. I look at what Tanakh says, then compare that to the Grecco-Roman NT. And then I see if it fits. It does not. Not even close. Mellisa gave you a good list of why that is the case. What you dont realize (and I understand why) is that you are taking Grecco-Roman concepts from the 4th century and applying those concepts to the Jewish scriptures. It doesnt work like that.
You asked: “Why don’t you consider all this talk of a group of people cutting into the male sex organ, mutilating and cutting away foreskin of every penis in the house be fornication as you do with the virgin birth for example?”
David, you question compares apples to oranges. A) There is no Torah prohibition forbidding circumcision. B) G-d isnt the one doing the procedure. C) It is not part of a reproductive cycle within the institution of marriage between man and woman.
What god the holy spirit did to Mary was : Took a mans fiance (wife) . That is adultery. He magically made her pregnant. That is fornication. There is no way of sugar-coating that. Suppose that were your daughter…your wife..after becoming betrothed, suddenly became with child…There was NEVER any expectation within the Jewish community of a “virgin birth”. It would have been instantly scandalous. Mary would have been lucky to have not been stoned to death!
The virgin birth doesnt even fit with the rest of the gospel narratives! Why?
“Jesus Revisits Nazareth”
53 When Jesus had finished these parables, He departed from there. 54 He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at Him…
Now we are suppose to believe this virgin birth, but his own town has no knowledge of this?. They dont know that he was born of the virgin Mary? They dont know he is Emmanuel? (should have been his name)…
Luke says:48 When they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You.”49 And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?” 50 But they did not understand the statement which He had made to them.
Why would they not understand that? He was a virgin born god-man! Why did they even go back to Nazareth? They should have raised him in Jerusalem at the temple.
And then we have this gem by John: “7 After these things Jesus was walking in Galilee, for He was unwilling to walk in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill Him. 2 Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was near. 3 Therefore His brothers said to Him, “Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing. 4 For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.” 5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him. ”
Now come on. We have virgin born god-man, teaching things in secret (He lied to the high priest about that) and even his own brothers dont believe in him? Dont they know his mother gave virgin birth to him? Dont they know he went to the temple as a child and blew the teachers away?
None of this passes the most basic test of authenticity.
Then you wrote: “God told Abraham to sacrifice his “only” son, which included slaughtering and burning him with fire. Abraham didn’t question God. Abraham didn’t say: hey God that sounds a lot like paganism. ”
You are missing the whole point of the binding of Issac. It was a test. To see if Abraham “feared G-d”. Abraham told his servants to wait until He and Issac returned! Clue #1. Abraham knew the covenant would go through Issac. Therefore he TRUSTED G-d, that G-d would give him an out. Clue#2. Abraham told Issac, G-d will provide the lamb..Clue#3.
And sure enough…G-d did provide, even better, a Ram. A G-d made it clear NO HUMAN SACRIFICE Deut 12.
And also, note: Abraham was prepared to do a PROPER sacrifice. An Altar…A knife to slit his throat….wood for the fire…
Jesus suffocated to death on the cross…did NOT die of rapid blood loss at the neck.
Jesus blood was NOT sprinkled on any altar.
Jesus body was NOT burned, his fat and ofal not burned.
Jesus did not have a priest there to officiate.
So no matter how you view it. Abraham was doing it properly and not one thing…not one thing was “right” about Jsus’s “sacrifice”.
Oops. My error melissa33774 , the below reply was not meant for you. You can ignore it.
Or rather the earlier reply posted at 10:28 was not meant for you, which is actually above this post and the other.
Even if we do need an all-encompassing blood atonement, no man fulfills the requirements to be used as a sacrifice to G-d. Pagan religions sacrifice people, but G-d’s children do not. According to all of Torah law, sacrifice can only be made from a kosher animal, and must be shechted (ritually slaughtered) in an exact manner.
So if it is true that mankind needs a blood atonement once and for all, we are still waiting for it because no man can serve as an atonement. This is why G-d provided a ram for Abraham to sacrifice on the alter instead of Isaac.
Pingback: ‘The Prophet’s Perspective’ | Exploring Life, The Universe and Everything
Reblogged this on 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources.
This also gives the lie to the Christian claim that the God of the Hebrew Bible is the God of wrath while the God of the Christian scriptures is the God of love.
This is so true. I never felt peace when I was a Chrstian. I always doubt that I was truly saved and always wondered if I would finish in hell. Now that I believe in the G-d of Israel, I know the He is the true G-d and that he is merciful!
Yisroel– About a year ago I had a similar thought about this.
What was Ezekiel’s concern? What bothered Ezekiel?
Ezekiel was a prophet facing and then living in exile. What was his concern? Ezekiel the prophet, was a Cohen, a Priest. That means atonement of his people would have been of utmost concern. And as a priest, specifically as a priest in exile, if blood sacrifices on the altar were no longer possible as the sole means of forgiveness, it would have been an intolerable situation for Ezekiel. Ezekiel lived during the Babylonian Exile. They had No Temple. They had no ability to offer sacrifice. So what did he write about?
Ezekiel mentions blood in various contexts, 46 times, second only to Leviticus (72). Sometimes with respect to idolatry, murder and the restored offering in the 3rd temple.
Ezekiel NOT ONCE…NOT ONCE….mentions the lack of blood sacrifice as a problem for personal salvation. There is not one lament of a now doomed people, lost and condemned without a blood sacrifice.
Ezekiel IS concerned about the departure of G-d’s Shekinah from the temple, the destruction of Jerusalem, idolatry, corruption, the lack of Torah observance, lack of Justice, Mercy and such….This a HUGE concern of Ezekiel’s and in fact is THE concern.
Ezekiel writes about a restored Temple, Priesthood, Sacrificial system and the Jewish people being redeemed for the sake of G-ds name and the return of the Divine Presence to Jerusalem and the restored Temple….This is a huge concern of Ezekiel’s.
But he NEVER talks about blood sacrifice as something missing or being restored for us. It is about Hashem. A departing and returning Shekinah of Hashem.
He talks of a Jewish people wicked and corrupt…that is exiled..
He talks of a geluah, a redeemed Jewish people, who now are observant and obey G-ds laws, statutes and ordinances.
Nothing…nothing….. about “blood sacrifices only forgive sin”…. being lost and then restored. Nor a messiah to come and be this once-for-all korban sacrifice. Nor does Jeremiah, Isaiah, Daniel or Esther, who all lived in exile, write such a thing. Nor does Elijah or Elisha, who lived in the Northern Kingdom and are forbidden to go to Jerusalem lament the loss on their “blood only atonement”.There is no basis in scripture at all for the christian concept of atonement by blood only.
Blasater Amazing! great point!
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Thank you Yisroel , very kind of you.