Leviticus 17:11 and the Book of Hebrews

Leviticus 17:11 and the Book of Hebrews


The author of the book of Hebrews presents one of the lynchpins of the Christian missionary campaign in the 9th chapter of his work. In that chapter he states that there is no remission (from sin) without the shedding of blood (verse 22). It is on the basis of this statement that the masters of persuasion attempt to frighten their audience. The missionaries contend that since sins cannot be remitted without the shedding of blood then without Jesus’ sacrifice you are dead in your sins.


This lynchpin of the missionary campaign has no basis in reality. You see; the author of Hebrews did not present this statement as a revelation that he received in some secretive encounter. The author of the book of Hebrews presents his statement as a factual conclusion that he arrived at upon studying the Law of Moses.


The Law of Moses is in front of us and we can see that there is no basis for the conclusion that the author of Hebrews arrived at. Moses never says that there can be no remission from sin without the shedding of blood. The path for remission of the national sin that Moses maps out for us is repentance and not the shedding of blood (Deuteronomy 30:2). The prophet Jonah; who presumably also studied the Law of Moses, fully expected the sin of the Ninevites to be remitted on the basis of their repentance and without the shedding of any blood (Jonah 4:2). There are simply no grounds in the Law of Moses for the drastic statement found in Hebrews 9:22.


The missionaries are not daunted by this obvious inconsistency evident at the root of their work of persuasion. These missionaries have developed several imaginative explanations in an effort to justify the teaching presented by the author of the book of Hebrews.


Many missionaries defend this non-Scriptural teaching by quoting Leviticus 17:11. In that verse God explains why He prohibited the consumption of blood. It is because: “For the soul of the flesh is in the blood and I have assigned it for you upon the altar to atone for your souls for it is the blood that atones for the soul.” The closing phrase of this verse would seem to indicate that blood has a power to atone that is not found elsewhere. The missionaries seize up on this phrase and present it as if it had said that outside of the shedding of blood there is no atonement.


The fact is that this passage says nothing of the sort. This passage is not contrasting blood over and against other methods of achieving God’s forgiveness such as repentance. This passage is explaining why it is that God allowed us to eat other parts of the animal but prohibited the blood. This passage is contrasting the blood over and against other parts of the animal and is explaining why out of all the components of the animal it is the blood that atones. This passage is not negating the power of repentance to atone for sin.


Other missionaries focus on the Hebrew verb “kaper” (generally translated as “atone”) and contend that this verb is only found in the Jewish Bible in conjunction with a blood sacrifice. The argument assumes that this particular word (“kaper”) represents a complete and absolute cleansing from sin and that this level of cleansing from sin is not represented or described by any other word in the Jewish Bible. According to these missionaries the intent of the author of Hebrews was that this particular aspect of atonement can only be achieved through the shedding of blood.


There are four problems with this fanciful interpretation. First; it is clear that the author of the book of Hebrews was not limiting his statement to this particular aspect of atonement. The Greek word that he uses to describe remission from sin is not a word that is parallel to the Hebrew “kaper” which is translated as “atone”. The Greek word used by the author of Hebrews is more generally translated as “forgiveness” or remission in the sense of rescinding the punishment.


Second; there is no reason to believe that the Hebrew word “kaper” denotes the ultimate form of cleansing from sin. There are other words that the Jewish Bible uses to describe the process of remission from sin such as: “s’lach” (forgive), “no’se” (pardon) and “ratzon” (favor, appeasement). Arguably the most extreme expression used by the Jewish Bible is found in the Book of Ezekiel where God promises that all of the sinner’s transgressions will not be remembered against him (Ezekiel 18:22; 33:16). There is no reason to assume that these expressions describe a lesser remission from sin than does the verb “kaper”.


Third; the missionary argument is simply predicated on a lie. The word “kaper” is found in the Hebrew Bible in conjunction with various actions that atone such as a verbal confession or the offering of incense and is not exclusively used for the shedding of blood as the missionaries would have us believe (Exodus 30:15; 32:30; Leviticus 5:13; 16:6,10,11; Numbers 17:11; 31:50; Proverbs 16:6).


Finally; upon closer examination it will be revealed that the author of the book of Hebrews was not trying to exalt the blood sacrifices described in the Five Books of Moses. In fact this author is attempting to denigrate these offerings. The entire thrust of chapters 9 and 10 in the book of Hebrews is that since the offerings of the Temple needed to be repeated this somehow “proves” that they could never take away sin to begin with. There is no way to say that the author of Hebrews believed that the blood sacrifices of the Temple provided some sort of absolute and complete atonement.


There remains no way to defend the declaration of Hebrews 9:22.


But the inconsistency runs much deeper. According to the author of the book of Hebrews we are supposed to read Leviticus 17:11 and conclude that this is the most profound and critical teaching concerning atonement that is recorded in the entirety of the Jewish Bible. Then we are supposed to turn around and say that the blood offerings of the Temple never really atoned to begin with.


Go figure.

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.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

This entry was posted in Atonement, Scripture. Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to Leviticus 17:11 and the Book of Hebrews

  1. melissa33774 says:

    What I don’t understand is why, if the blood atonement of Jesus is the ultimate “fix” to the human condition of sin, then why is it that so many people; really sincere, good hearted, honest people, still continue to sin either knowingly or unknowingly, even after accepting Jesus’ atoning death on the cross? How does that differ from the Temple sacrifices not atoning once and for all? It is hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that once I accept Jesus’ sacrifice that all my sins, past, present and future, will be forgiven. How does that help me to be a better person and prevent me from sinning again?

    • Yeremyah says:

      Good hearted people do not knowingly sin – because then they would not be good hearted. The mechanism is the same one that causes people to be catalyzed by the death of an innocent child and to take action for the better as a result. You have to have an emotional bond with the victim.

      • melissa33774 says:

        ;Hi Yeremyah, thanks for replying. I have some questions. You stated in your first sentence that a “goodhearted person” does not willfully sin. I consider myself pretty goodhearted and I often find myself remorseful for sinning… even those times when I should’ve known better, but I let the yetzer hara (evil inclination) get the best of me.

        Maybe I’ve said something that wasn’t nice out of anger, or maybe I was too hard on my child, or maybe I didn’t “feel” like doing a favor for my neighbor because I was tired and had a rough day, even though she really needed it. Maybe even someone didn’t tithe a full 10% because that’s an area that even good people often struggle with. These are all “willful” sins. Even if we can sympathize with the person who has committed these sins, they are still, nonetheless, sins. But I think the biggest sin of all that we are ALL guilty of is gossip. Even the nicest, most goodhearted individual will get caught every so often saying something that is just better left unsaid. So I’m thinking maybe you were trying to convey a different message, that perhaps you can explain to me.

        I’m not sure what you were saying when you wrote “The mechanism is the same one that causes people to be catalyzed by the death of an innocent child and to take action for the better as a result. You have to have an emotional bond with the victim.” Maybe you could explain that in simpler terms for me as well.

        Thanks Yeremyah.

    • Melissa,
      This same question could be asked after reading Leviticus chapter 16, thoroughly and carefully; the concept of “all sin” being forgiven “for all time” was present from G-d’s earliest establishment of the Law, as was the concept of substitutionary atonement. Looking particularly at verses 21 and 22, as found on chabad.org (http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9917/jewish/Chapter-16.htm), we see the following: “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 to a precipitous land, and he shall send off the he goat into the desert.”

      So then, if indeed this substitutionary atonement was not only allowed but actually ESTABLISHED by the G-d of Israel (it was), and if in fact He required it over and above all FOR ALL TIME regardless of the individual, personal sacrifices throughout the year (He did – see verses 33-34 in addition to several earlier verses), then why would the question you are asking seem to be a new question? It isn’t – no doubt some people of that day likewise asked: “So if this atonement is for all time, and ALL of my sins are sent on a goat to a precipitous land, then why do I need to worry about being a good person?”

      The problem with this thinking – regardless of its source – is that it does not recognize the need of the human heart. The sin problem was indeed atoned, yet the unchanged, unrepentant heart before G-d — perhaps a heart that refused to admit there was any necessity for a substitutionary atonement, even though G-d Himself required it — remained prideful and self-righteous, far from truly knowing G-d. It is the heart that KNOWS it is undeserving before a Holy and Righteous G-d that at once also recognizes the unimaginable Mercy and Kindness of this G-d who would provide a way for atonement so that we might know Him.

      • P.S. What I meant to also mention is not only the question that may seem to ask (about behavior) but also your particular question – how can a person whose sins are atoned, once and for all, continue to sin? – could likewise be asked after thoroughly reading Leviticus 16. And if someone’s answer is “Oh, but you have to understand Leviticus 16 in the broader context,” my reply would be: “Then you must apply that same logic to any other verse you quote from any Scripture…and must also remember that Leviticus 16 was not just one sacrifice among many but rather was the ONE Holy Day of Atonement established by the G-d of Israel.”

        G-d’s goodness was never meant to lead to man’s exploitation. Man may have read Leviticus 16 back then and thought he would flippantly ignore G-d’s Holiness and Righteousness (and G-d’s desire that we behave as His children) in those days, too. In fact, we read over and over in the Tanakh of the Israelites’ rebellion, sin, and even murder of the prophets G-d sent them. Yet it is G-d who knows the heart. He alone knows who really comes to Him with a repentant, humble heart that recognizes its sin and need – but also a joyful heart in recognizing that His forgiveness is based on His Goodness alone, and on the atonement HE provided. In His great mercy, He has put up with mankind’s willful disobedience time after time, as He shows repeatedly throughout the Tanakh. Yet He still provided that way for those who will humble themselves to truly know Him, and it was to that end that His Mercy was intended in the first place, all along.

      • Freedom
        There is a difference between “required” and “provided” – required would indicate that there is no way to achieve atonement without it – provided does not have that connotation – prideful means reading into God’s word what doesn’t say there

        • Friend,
          Required means that the G-d of Israel commanded it. He did not merely suggest that the Holy Day of Atonement be practiced from time to time but rather established it as the Holy Day and COMMANDED (or required, which by definition means to claim or ask for by right and authority) that it be instituted “for all time.” And it was in fact the one and only Day of Atonement, established above and in spite of all of the personal sacrifices, to atone “for all sin.”

          And the meaning of pride, the pride that G-d hates, is found here:

          Proverbs 16:18-19 “Before destruction comes PRIDE, and before stumbling [comes] a haughty spirit. It is better to be of humble spirit with the lowly than to divide the spoils with the HAUGHTY.”

          I would certainly agree with you that pride does include reading into G-d’s Word what it doesn’t say, as it also includes subtracting from it what it does say. The latter would include negating the substitutionary atonement and blood sacrifices on the Holy Day (Yom Kippur) that the LORD G-d of Israel both established throughout the entire chapter of Leviticus 16 and also commanded. Pride would also include denying that such is really necessary, after the G-d of Israel said it was. All that contradicts the Word of G-d, whether adding to it or subtracting from it, certainly stems from pride…but the definition of pride itself is haughtiness, exaltation, arrogance and such (in the sense it is often used Biblically), generally in reference to self – versus a humble heart that looks to G-d alone… His righteousness and His provision, and not our own…trusting in Him alone.

          • Yehuda says:


            You have now invoked the permanence of Yom Kippur at least a dozen different times in several different threads.

            I hope you realize how comical this is to Jews – the only people in the world for whom Yom Kippur continues to hold any meaning – coming from a Christian for whom the 10th day of the seventh month – the one and only day that God designated as his day of atonement for all time – means absolutely nothing.

            We’ve been around this issue multiple times on other threads. I’ve made plain to you that every sincere Jew on the planet continues to long for the restoration of that atonement service in all its detail, just as Ezekiel and Daniel did when they were in exile and unable to perform the sacrifices. Moreover, you pretty much conceded the point.

            Your continued droning on this matter is getting rather boring.

          • Yehuda says:

            …And since you keep repeating yourself, I’ll take the opportunity to repeat some of what I wrote to you last week…

            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. Ezekiel, by contrast, understood that this permanent ritual prescription may not always be practicable. However, he never dared so much as hint that it would ever be replaced by something alien,and utterly unscriptural

            And neither do we..

            You want to talk about the attitude of the prophets? Let’s.

            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. 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 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.

          • Yehuda,
            I am very sorry to hear that you find boring the topic of the one and only Day of Atonement that the G-d of Israel established “for all sin…for all time.” He certainly did not consider it boring or comical at all, and I seek to respect that which the LORD established as Holy. Something established as the Holy Day by the G-d of Israel Himself is astounding and greatly deserving of much study and respect, and I do love to review it regularly in honor of His establishment of it and the importance He gave it, including the substitutionary atonement He provided there, and His way for Israel to have all sin atoned on this one day. Something so significant is a day we should love to discuss and remember frequently, I believe.

          • Yehuda says:

            Once again, I am happy at this point to leave to our judicious readers of this thread to discern which of us is reading and addressing the other and which of us is not.

            And as always, I wish you peace..

          • And I wish peace and blessings to you, friend. The prophets spoke often and regularly about the sacrifices, about mankind’s sin, and about G-d’s Mercy, and I wish to do the same, without being criticized for my respect for and attention to the Holy Day of Atonement established by the LORD G-d of Israel.


  2. Ali Hussain says:

    Most modern scholars consider the epistle to the Hebrews to be anonymous and clearly reject Paul as its author. Daniel Wallace a conservative scholar , “the arguments against Pauline authorship, however, are conclusive.”

    That is the ridiculous part ….. Christians believe in some anonymous authors saying , not Jesus and not even Paul !!! . Some anonymous statement carries more weight than countless verses in the Old Testament which clearly says God forgives the sincere repentant .

    • Yeremyah says:

      The author is simply ignoring the plain and obvious fact that the author of Hebrew is making – that there is virtually no sin in the law that did not require bloodshed of one kind or another, animal or human sacrifice.

      • What kind of shedding of blood does stealing require? How about speaking evil of others?

        • Yeremyah says:

          Theft is in a category of its own since it is the one offence that can be completely undone and reversed to the point as if it never happened – unlike other sins. This makes it unique, so when the item is returned the crime is effectively undone. Fines were added as a deterrant from doing it again.

          • Larry says:

            What happens if you loose it or break it and cannot give it back

          • Yeremyah
            – theft is a sin between man and man as well as a sin between man and God – how does giving back the money – perhaps a year later “undo” the sin? In any case what is the sacrifice required for lying?

      • Ali Hussain says:

        Whaaaaaaaat ? , human sacrifice , huh ! . Which sin required human sacrifice ? .

        Plus , sacrifice is required for only unintentional sins in Leviticus . Can you show me what sacrifice is required for rape ? or

  3. naaria says:

    You can make argument after argument from scripture or from common sense or from reason or from scholarship (even from prominent conservative Christian scholars, as Mr Wallace, as Ali wrote) , but those who selectively use Lev 17.11 out of context need to in order to justify some un-Biblical idea. Their persistence on committing error reminds me of unrepentant sinners. Their arguments remind me of the arguments that the serpent made to Eve. The serpent & Eve found excuses and loopholes “in the law” to justify their words or disobedient action.

    Modern day rebels might even quote scripture to say Eve did no wrong, for in Gen 1.30 “God said, “See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.” Eve couldn’t see if the fruit had seed or not, right? And she saw the tree did seem “good for food”, right? And that the tree was a delight to the eyes, right? And that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, right? So it was Ok to taste the fruit and see (have your eyes opened – not be blind), right?? No, serpent and Eve; wrong.

    All life (including a serpent or swine) with blood in it, has life in it, right? A crippled or dying ox with a “blemish” (maybe, even with Mad Cow Disease), still has blood it it and therefore can be offered on the altar, right? A lamb that is offered to imaginary goat-demons is a sacrifice that is acceptable to God for atonement of all sins of all people, since the lamb does have blood, right? If one said that they hate God & they love to kill little children and are unrepentant of either sin, God will still atone for all their past sins if they offer a sick lamb in the Temple, just for show, since life is in the blood, right?

    • naaria says:

      Part of the Chanukah story, is the story of Epiphanes, a “great” Seleucid Greek leader, with a mighty army, who considered himself a god manifested in the flesh. He was a son of god. He allowed swine to be offered on the altar. He required the Jewish people to bring their sacrifices to the temple, so that they could be offered to the “great and mighty” Zeus, god over all gods. Mighty Zeus and his son, god manifested in the flesh, (the abomination of abominations) were soon defeated, because the blood they offered was unacceptable to God in “his house”.

      • naaria says:

        Epiphanes’s birthday, Epiphany, was once also considered the birthday of Jesus, and that day is still celebrated in some churches.

  4. Michael says:

    The irony, for the Christian, is that even if Leviticus 17:11meant exactly what they claim it means Christianity still fails. Christians claim, as you have stated, that you can not have forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood. Then they go on to say that j.c. was the “final sacrifice” that his sacrifice paid the price for everyone’s sins, as long as they say the magic words (Christian sinner’s prayer). But that doesn’t work, they have a chronology problem. All Christians agree that it was some time after j.c.’s death that the law was “done away with”. Before j.c.’s death all Christians agree that the law was in full effect. So if the law is in full effect and you have to have a blood sacrifice to have forgiveness of sin the Christians have NO forgiveness of their sins, because based on the law j.c. was NOT a valid sacrifice.

    I have often said that my burning a rat to death on a BBQ would be closer to a Biblically valid sacrifice then j.c. was. The Torah tells us that a sacrifice has to be from a kosher animal. Rats are not kosher. Not only was j.c. not a kosher animal he was the one type of animal the Torah specifically tells us not to sacrifice. I am not a kohen, but I am Jewish. j.c. was sacrificed by a roman. My rat may not be without blemishes, but the Christians brag about how horribly beaten and blood j.c. was before he ever got to the cross. The list goes on. As far as I can tell j.c. didn’t meet even one of the requirements for a valid Biblical sacrifice.

  5. David says:

    Many, including the original poster, myphariseefriend, have mistakenly interpreted the author of Hebrews to mean in 9:22b that he is saying the blood of animals was/is “necessary” for the forgiveness of sin.

    The author of Hebrews is well aware that the sacrificial blood of animals is not “necessary” for the forgiveness of sins. Not only is it not necessary, in Hebrews 10:4 he states: “For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.”

    Hebrews 9:22b clause “…, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” should be read in the immediate and broader context in which it is located. The immediate context, both before and after the verse, is the inauguration and purification of the 1st covenant as a copy of the second. The immediate verse following is about cleansing the earthly copies of the heavenly things with “these things.” And “these things” are described in the preceding verse 19 as the “blood of the calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop.”

    The author of Hebrews therefore is not saying it is the blood of the sacrifices (which are repeated time and again) which removes the sin, it is rather the covenant itself which is purified with these things which included blood. And without the blood in the inauguration and purification of the covenant no sin is forgiven.

    But the meaning goes beyond that. He makes it clear in the immediate context that the first covenant is a “copy” of the second covenant, not the other way around. Therefore if the first is a copy of the second, it is the second convenient itself ultimately and the blood of the second actually that removes the sin.

    Therefore, the inhabitants of Nineveh were forgiven due to the covenant of Christ and His blood which was represented by Jonah under the copy covenant. So also is every other sin addressed from the first sin to the last sin. All are forgiven due to the work of Christ including those who were prior to the covenants.

    Those who believe in the second covenant believe that it was God’s plan to establish it since before the beginning of time as the solution to sin. All other events are provided for our edification, as heralds to announce the way, to foretell. We believe the first was holy and good but the second is infinitely better because God planned it that way. John the Baptist was good, (as Jesus said there have been none greater) and he announced the arrival of the Son of God, but the Son of God himself is infinitely greater than John. The first had to give way to the second as ordained by God for this is the plan and the will of God, that we should all be saved, reconciled to God. And the only acceptable path to that reconciliation is through God’s gift to mankind.

    I believe that it is through the blood of Christ alone which imparts life in the age to come. All those past, present and future, who have been called by God, who will enjoy life in the age to come will do so because of the work Christ did in obedience to God. That includes all those who were under the first covenant and before that.

    Why do I believe it must be a man and not an animal? Why do I believe it must be a sinless man? The short answer is because that’s the way God willed it. A partial and longer answer follows:

    God told Adam you have one rule. Break it and you’ll “surely die.” “Surely die” as used in the bible means a premature death, unnatural, and usually violent. Adam broke the rule. He didn’t die as God had described, he lived to be 930. Why didn’t he die a premature death? Because God had already selected another before time began to die in his place.

    It can’t be an animal to take the place of Adam because an animal is inferior to man. It couldn’t be just any other man because all future men from Adam would have the same problem as their father Adam which is consciousness of sin.

    It had to be a man because God told the one rule to a “man” who was flesh, and who also had the will of a man to obey or disobey. Therefore it can’t be God or a god who doesn’t have the will to disobey himself or disobey God. And it can’t be an angel who isn’t flesh. It had to be an exact replica, but a sinless replica, and someone with free will as Adam to say yes God your will not mine.

    Why did it have to be a sinless replica, and not just any replica? Because anything with sin already cannot take away sin from another and accept it upon him-self. Therefore God, the heavenly father of Christ, removes our sin because there is another, His Son, who is 100% sinless and therefore acceptable take upon himself the sins of every other soul past present and future.

    There are other reasons as well and I’ll cover one of them which I call for lack of a better term “legal and moral.”

    All descendants of Adam, follow Adam’s sin and are under the same condemnation of execution “surely die.” Why? because legally and morally, God had to right to kill Adam on the spot. If God had killed Adam on the spot then humanity would not exist. Adam would not have had descendants. God could have started over of course, but the house of man as God created it would not exist as we know it. You would not exist, I would not exist, the Ninevites would not have existed to be forgiven, etc.

    So therefore, if God had the legal and moral right to kill Adam on the spot all descendants of Adam (that’s everyone on the planet who is or ever was except one) are living through the grace of God. We have no moral or legal right to be here. We should have died with Adam. Adam had no legal or moral right to continue living even for a second let alone 930 years to father many children. Adam was a condemned man and stayed a condemned man until Christ took his place. He like all the rest of us are 100% depended on the work of Christ to accept the death that was meant for Adam.

    And now you know why Christ had to come from God through a virgin birth. He could not have come from Adam’s DNA or he’d be under the same condemnation as Adam and would have been unworthy to accept the punishment of another. One condemned man cannot stand in for another condemned man; they both must die. Only a man who is not condemned can stand in for another.

    You might wonder about Mary and the seed. This was necessary as well, because it is through Mary as descended from Eve where Jesus gets his humanity and is acceptable as 100% man. At this point Trinitarians believe that Jesus removed his God nature and incarnated him-self. Non-Trinitarians such as my-self believe that Jesus was begotten, created at the time God’s Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and did not pre-exist in any way. He was always the focal point of God’s plan but did not exist as God, man, or anything else. He did not exist, he was begotten, he existed, he died, he was raised, and exists now as a man in his glorified body as the first of fruits at the right hand of God as a man.

    Sorry for getting a little off track there. So back to Eve’s seed; I personally believe that God begat Jesus with the sinless seed of Eve which was miraculously carried down through the generations to Mary in one single solitary line passed from parent to child. The uncorrupted seed of Eve did not mix uncorrupted DNA with corrupted DNA in the seed in question. In effect the seed stayed in tack through all generations until it reached Mary. In a real way, it was Eve’s seed. Then the only way to produce a man who was 100% without any corrupted DNA with consciousness of sin yet be fully human was to have God cause Mary’s uncorrupted seed to grow through the overshadowing of Holy Spirit. But that’s just my personal belief. Trinitarians as stated above generally believe that “God the Son” Jesus incarnated himself into Mary’s womb and/or into her seed (egg) and became 100% man.

    In either case we all (Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians) believe that Jesus is 100% man through Mary and that it was absolutely necessary that he be 100% man for reasons mentioned earlier.

    So for those of us like me who believe that Mary’s seed was uncorrupted as descended from Eve and was acceptable to be used by God as a sinless seed; how is that possible? The short answer is through the miraculous power of God him-self.

    When God created Eve, she was fully formed from the rib of Adam, who at the time had not yet sinned. That means that the seed to be used within Eve was also fully formed and sinless. That means that even after Adam’s sin (and to some extent Eve’s sin) her seed remained uncorrupted by the self-consciousness of sin. This is so because a woman’s egg is unchanged from the time it is developed within the young woman. Therefore, later sins in life do not change the character of the egg. That’s not the case with any man.

    So in conclusion, we come back full circle. The blood of animals does not and never did remove sin (Hebrews 10:4), at least not directly. It is only what that blood represents. It is the blood of Christ which removes sin. Christ and his blood (life) is the means God instituted to remove sin and award everlasting life. There is no substitute, only a copy (the first covenant) which by itself is powerless to do anything. Its power is in what it represents, which is Christ and his blood given freely for all; the savior of the world. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness (Hebrews 9:22b). Ultimately it is the blood of Christ who is the second covenant as represented by the earlier copy which forgives all sin. The first covenant naturally had to give way to the second and over time became irrelevant but was still a necessary and holy preliminary step, just as John gave way to Jesus and over time became irrelevant but was still a necessary and holy preliminary step.

    • melissa33774 says:

      How is it that we know that Jesus was completely without sin, anyway? Who was the authority that was able to discern what sinless is? What are his credentials?

    • Michael says:

      You said so many things that I would like to take issue with, but I don’t have the time, so I will focus on one very important point. You said “The first covenant … became irrelevant…”. I find it amazing that you can declare something “irrelevant” that G_D has declared eternal. Do a word search in the Hebrew part of your Bible for eternal, everlasting, forever, etc.. The right word to search for will depend on what version of the Bible you are using. You will find that the Bible you claim you believe in over and over again, both for specific laws and in general refers to the law as eternal. If your reading of Hebrews leads you to the conclusion that Torah is irrelevant I would simple say Hebrews is irrelevant, and much worse.

      I am sure you know that the Hebrew part of your Bible was written long long before the Greek part was. Why would G_D call something eternal and then later change His mind? That doesn’t describe the G_D I know. If you believe G_D changed his mind on the Torah being eternal, how do you know He will not change His mind on j.c.? When will He give a third covenant?

      The bottom line, as the author showed, is that Christianity doesn’t fit inside a Jewish/Torah context. Christianity claims to be, as you have stated, the completion of what G_D started with the Jewish people. But it doesn’t fit, it has never fit. As I have just pointed out you have to say that G_D changes his mind in order for it to fit and the minute you do that you can say anything and anything is equally plausible.

      Or you can do something that very few Christians do. You can read the Hebrew part of your Bible and let it speak for itself. Don’t read it assuming that Christian theology is correct, let it speak for itself. If you can manage to do that you will find a book that is completely different then what you thought it was. But you have to put to side your preconceived theologies, other wise that is all you will see.

      • David says:

        God didn’t change His mind, He planned it all from the beginning.

        • Michael says:

          So you are saying that G_D “from the beginning” plan on tell the Jewish people that the Torah (law) was eternal, fully knowing that He was later going to say it wasn’t. So it looks like you are saying that G_D doesn’t change His mind, but that he lied to the Jewish people.

          I am sure you, as I, don’t believe that G_D lied to anyone. The problem is you are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. At some point you may want to consider which is more important to you, the truth of what the Scriptures say or the theology you are defending. Give the Hebrew part of your Bible a chance to speak for itself.

          Paul claims that he preached the Christian theology based on the Scriptures. This was long before the Greek part of your Bible was ever written. If that is true you should be able to totally ignore what you learned in Church and what the Greek half of your Bible says and find the same truth. You should be able to study just the Hebrew Scriptures and find the same truth. I chalenge you to try. Put aside your preconceived theology and just let the Scripture speak for themselves. If you listen you will find that the Torah, and the world is a lot more beautiful then you thought.

          • David says:

            You don’t have to come to the conclusion that God lied necessarily; you don’t even have to come to the conclusion that God changed his mind (which the bible says He did on several occasions based on people’s behavior or misbehavior as is the case here). If the reasons and purposes behind with first covenant were taken up into the second, then the first continues in spirit. Remember that the author of Hebrews says that the 1st is a “copy” of the things in heaven. The bible shows us that God can and does reveal things to us over time. Nothing written anywhere in the OT or NT says that God is done with His revelation to man.

      • David says:

        Michael posted:
        April 21, 2013 at 12:51 pm

        “You said “The first covenant … became irrelevant…”. I find it amazing that you can declare something “irrelevant” that G_D has declared eternal.”

        My reply: In retrospect, “irrelevant” was a poor choice of words on my part. I’m reminded of the following:
        1 Tim 3:16 “All Scripure is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely for every good work.”

        In addition, the author of Hebrews says in 9:1 “Now even the first covenant had righteous decrees of divine service and the earthly sanctuary.”

        Instead of characterizing the 1st covenant as irrelevant it would have been better of me to just quote from the bible: Hebrews 10:9b “…He is abolishing the first covenant, in order that he may establish the second”; 8:13 “In that he says, “A new covenant,” he has made the first obsolete. But that which is being made obsolete and growing aged is close to vanishing away.”

        • Michael says:

          You seem to be totally missing, or avoiding, my whole point. It does’t matter if you use the word “irrelevant” or the expression “vanishing away” the end result is the same. G_D said, many times, that the Law is eternal, yet you Christians say that it is irrelevant, vanishing away, old, etc. Your theology totally contradicts what the Torah says what the Hebrew part of your Bible says.

          Your rationalization that G_D didn’t lie because “…the first continues in spirit.” is effectively saying that G_D is playing word games with us and that we can not take ANYTHING in the Scripture on face value. You are insisting that many plan statements in the Scriptures don’t mean at all what they seem to mean, that their only meaning is some hidden meaning, that can only be determined by liberally reading a text that was written hundreds of years later.

          So again I will ask you if such is the way you interpret the Scriptures how do you know what you are reading in your Christian text is correct? Maybe j.c. whole mission on earth and everything the deciples did was just a “shadow” of the fourth covenant? Maybe the sermon on the mount was actually preaching about war, but you need to wait for the Epistles of George to be written a few hundred years from now before that will be obvious to all Christians. The maybes go on forever if you don’t take G_D at HIS word.

  6. cflat7 says:

    Are you really saying Eve’s seed somehow was preserved through the generations down to Mary? I would think when Eve died any unfertilized seeds she carried went to the grave with her.

    • melissa33774 says:

      I thought seed referred to the male’s offspring. I might be mistaken though.

    • David says:

      That’s not what I meant. But keep in mind the “how” is my speculation. The “what” is from the bible. The “what” are the prophesies such as Gen 3:15 “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and hers; he will strike your head and you will strike his heel.” I speculate that the seed (egg) that was in Eve and the seed that was in Mary are identical. The male part of the DNA in the case of Jesus could have come from the left over male DNA when God made Eve.

  7. While it is true that some may overuse Leviticus 17:11 as “proof” that atonement required the shedding of blood, it is not true that the context of Leviticus 17:11 is merely food items and is unrelated to blood sacrifice. It is both, and to claim otherwise would be to ignore the first 9 verses of the same chapter (Leviticus 17:1-9) as well as the entire preceding chapter – the one and only Holy Day of Atonement established by the G-d of Israel. G-d was indeed saying that Israel should abstain from eating blood…BECAUSE the G-d of Israel had assigned it (blood) for making expiation, as He had JUST finished describing in the entire chapter of Leviticus 16 as a background – because “it is the blood, as life, that effects expiation” (verse 11).

    It is important to bear in mind that, while Leviticus 16 should be understood in the broader context of Scripture, so should any other Scripture quoted. It is also important to remember that Yom Kippur, the holy Day of Atonement established by the G-d of Israel “for all sin…for all time” was not merely another one of many sacrifices but rather was THE day of atonement. There were indeed many other atonements and sacrifices and offerings of many kinds. Yet this was THE day of atonement that the G-d of Israel established – despite the Law, despite the other personal atonements, and despite the repentance and humility and obedience that He most certainly also required. In other words, despite all of these other things, He still established the holy Day of Atonement, a day of substitutionary atonement and blood sacrifice, to be remembered for all time.

    The problem comes when people confuse personal responsibility with atonement. As an Israelite in Moses’ day, if I stole something, must I indeed repay it? If so – then why? After all, Leviticus 16:21-22 clearly says that ALL sin, whatever they may be, would be carried away by the goat, and that atonement was made on the altar for ALL sin. So why would I need to repay what I steal or need to have a heart of humility and repentance before G-d, if indeed these verses are true? Why indeed! Because the fact that sin was atoned provided me with a way to acknowledge the barrier my sin caused between me and G-d, as mentioned in Isaiah 59:2, not a way to escape the human aspect of my sin (the harm I caused others, which I indeed must personally be held accountable for and must rectify). The fact that sin was atoned meant that I am free to accept His forgiveness and the provision HE established (Yom Kippur – Leviticus 16), acknowledging my sin and need and humbling myself to realize that His ways are higher than mine. The fact that sin was atoned does NOT relieve me from personal responsibility, including not only the responsibility to repay any debts I have incurred with others but also the need to continue in His Good Ways that provided Yom Kippur on my behalf in the first place.

  8. David says:

    That makes perfect sense to me.

    • naaria says:

      How close do you believe that we are to the “end times”, when the new covenant, that is only a copy, and that only some are under now, is made obsolete, since it is now growing aged and is close to vanishing away?

      Do you have a guess as to how many Christians today accept the Immaculate Conception of Mary? And since she was sinless, do you also believe she is “the Mother of God”? Was there anyone in the OT called perfect and when Jesus says we can be perfect, did he just mean after his death or before? Is Gen 3:15, spoken of by Jesus in the Gospels? Since, Eve was the mother of all and her seed was passed to Jesus, does it also mean we have the seed that Jesus had in us? And did that seed alter or have any effect on people and therefore there could not only be righteous people (who had this spark of God within them), but if we tried, we too could be perfect?

      Was the real day that Jesus was executed actually on Yom Kippur, the day that God have as the Day of Atonement? Or did the Roman church or Constantine and man corrupt the teachings of Jesus, since they did change his birthday, his resurrection day and the holy day of rest, around in order to celebrate it on old pagan sun god holidays days of worship? Does Paul tell us when Jesus was resurrected or when he was born or was that not really that important? Why do some believe that the book of Hebrews was not even written by Paul? And why is Paul, in Galatians & some other letters, so “hostile” to the “pillars” or the Jewish disciples of Jesus in Jerusalem? Should we still bring sacrifices on the Day God established for atonement, or so that we not call God a liar, such that day just be “remembered”? Who should we see as the goat and who the lamb or oxen?

      • naaria says:

        Some people believe the sun god myths preceded Jesus (and are sometimes referred to as the devil’s Christs) – the copy came before the original or the “first”. While some say some or all of the pagan sun god myths are just later copies of the Jesus story – the copies came last. Can both be right? In other words, most people see the new covenants as improved copy of the old, rather than the old ones were a copy of the newer ones.

        • Naaria,
          I see that you have many, many questions; perhaps a flood of questions will not serve you as well as simply and thoroughly studying Leviticus 16 and the beautiful sacrifices the G-d of Israel established there “for all sin…for all time,” with the substitutionary atonement He there clearly presents.

          For all of us, a heart of humility and simple repentance is the best place to start, with worship and praise for this G-d who is so Holy and Righteous and yet so Merciful. For myself, at least, it is in the simple reflection on His love and provision despite my own unworthiness that I lose “self-centeredness” and can begin to see Him alone.

          • naaria says:

            That is an interesting theory, that since Eve was not a separate & later creation, and she had “seed”, and she came “from a man”, like a clone, that she may have been a man. And that the enmity between her offspring and the serpent’s, would not be a constant battle or bruising, but it would only come once, maybe twice in history?

          • naaria says:

            I think that perhaps answering some of the questions might indeed lead others to humility and to a re-reading Leviticus 16 in context. The arrogant see a small God, who is shaped in the images of Man, rather then seeing us as small, yet created in the image of God. What is God, that He have any concern for us? Look at the night sky, and you begin to see how Infinitesimally small we are. But God is not the only one who can love, or be merciful, or be righteous or holy. If we have any purpose, it is about time we grow up and we focus on us reflecting God’s image, rather then worshipping a reflection of Man.

          • Naaria,
            I certainly agree that it is wonderful to ask questions (perhaps not a flood of questions that seem to relate little to the text at hand, but certainly humble questions, seeking the answers in G-d’s Word). There, in His Word, we see that His prophets, His provisions, His Holy days, and the stories He gave us all point to the same thing – fallen man whose sins have created a barrier between him and G-d (Isaiah 59:2), but a Holy G-d who, in His great Love and Mercy, provided a way, every time, for man to know Him and to humbly recognize that all answers ultimately lead not to self-exaltation but rather to worship of a Holy G-d who, when there was no man to intervene during Israel’s time of great sin (as described throughout the first 15 verses of Isaiah 59), He brought salvation through His own arm (Isaiah 59:16).

            And the beauty is that “…a redeemer shall come to Zion, and to those who repent of transgression in Jacob, says the Lord” (Isaiah 59:20).

            As we learn to seek to establish His righteousness, and not our own, we can rest in Him and in His answers, simply getting to know Him through His Word.


          • naaria says:

            When we read Isa 59:2, let us not forget Isaiah 58:6-8, “No, this is the fast I desire: To unlock fetters of wickedness, And untie the cords of the yoke, To let the oppressed go free; To break off every yoke.
            It is to share your bread with the hungry, And to take the wretched poor into your home; When you see the naked, to clothe him, And not to ignore your own kin. Then shall your light burst through like the dawn, And your healing spring up quickly;
            Your Vindicator shall march before you,
            The Presence of the LORD shall be your rear guard.

          • alide1 says:

            All great verses! God was saying Israel was claiming righteousness but was not righteous at all, and that Israel was not doing what he asked for. A few verses back from the good ones you mentioned, Isaiah 58:1-5, God says to tell Israel that they just wanted to do righteousness for show, not with a lowly heart at all, that Israel was self-righteous, in other words. and in the chapter before that, Isaiah 57, God describes harlotry and iniquity, and says that the idols will not save. He says in Isaiah 57, verse 17, they are “stubborn and follow the way of their heart”. But then he tells about his mercy regardless. That is the story all through the bible. and that’s why it’s always, and always has been about him and his mercy, and all that he has done for us in spite of our sin.

        • naaria says:

          If the “old” was a copy then it is not true the Jesus “fulfilled prophesies”; then he points to past mistakes as perfection. God stands at a distance from our world & sees all time as One. We on the other hand, if we have any purpose, can see things 2 ways. Some say, hindsight is 20-20, so we can try to make sense out of things from where we have been, rather then from we are now or tomorrow. To solve certain types of problems we start from our current state & go backwards. If God did not make a mistake at the beginning when we were created & all was called good or very good, than where we were (the Garden) is where we are trying to get to from our current chaos. Jesus, who came 2000 years ago, a long time ago, was not a new Adam (a copy), instead Adam was the “new Jesus” (or the old Jesus). We undo things by fixing our past mistakes (which moves us forward to the Garden & to God). Unless God lied so much in the OT or if God really made a mistake in the Beginning & is impotent except by practicing the same blood rituals of ancient man, modeling Himself after likewise fallible humans?

  9. David says:

    Yehuda said:
    Did you not hang at least part of your “speculation” on your erroneous belief that the usage of “seed” as with Eve was unique? And if so, now that you know it is not, you don’t even have that upon which to base your “speculation”. Which means it is of little interest to anyone other than you.

    …and exactly how many instances do you require to render something non-unique?

    My reply:
    There is nothing I said which is DEPENDENT upon the bible referring to a woman’s seed as opposed to a man’s seed either one time or multiple times.

    That was a side note speculation by others (read the exchange before my comment) who erroneously thought the bible only referenced a man’s seed and never a woman’s seed. And I erroneously thought the reference to a woman’s seed occurred once. The fact remains God prophesied regarding Eve’s seed in Genesis 3:15; Eve was a woman. Eve’s seed is the seed of a woman.

    So, now you can stand corrected.

  10. Yehuda says:

    I agree.

    There is indeed nothing you said that is DEPENDENT on Gen 3:15 being unique because your interpretation of Gen 3:15, is in your own words, your “speculation” (Quote: “I speculate that the seed (egg) that was in Eve and the seed that was in Mary are identical.) and speculation is by definition, DEPENDENT on nothing because it is, by definition, BASED ON NOTHING. So if my mistake was in presuming that your speculation was DEPENDENT on anything, I indeed stand corrected.

    However, your closing remark above “Eve was a woman. Eve’s seed is the seed of a woman” belies your protest and continues to insist that you think there is something mystical and magical in that formulation. The fact remains that referring to the seed of a woman in Gen 3:15 calls for no more special consideration than it does in Gen 24:60, where it refers to Rebecca’s seed and Rebecca’s seed was the seed of a woman.

    I’ll leave it at that for our judicious readers to discern.


  11. melissa33774 says:

    Lori, please don’t disappoint me, I know you can do better. That is a non-answer. No, I am not without sin and yes, I want answers. I want to see the credentials of the NT writers. Why can’t I have them? Moses proved himself to be a prophet. There is no disputing that. I feel confident following the law he received from G-d. I want that same assurance from the people who changed all that. You need to do better. No fluff; I want real answers.

    • alide1 says:

      Hi Melissa,
      This seems a strange place to be seeking the credentials of NT writers. Have you tried asking some Christian theological blog writers your questions? I don’t follow blogs much, but I know there are a few good ones. you could check some out here
      See what some of them have to say.

      • naaria says:

        Alide, on your comment about earlier comments about Isaiah 59, etc. hopefully you get more out of the Bible then that humans sin & therefore God has to show mercy. Isaiah 58:6-8 interrupts the “pity party”, the ones who fasted unto starvation (which was not some sort of insincere show to either other people or to God) and says what we can do. What we can do, so that OUR light shines and that our vindicator (what does vindication mean?) sees us as worthy and “marches before us”. Fast and be distressed with face fallen (like Cain) or let there be uplift and you can master over sin. Sin is not a thing or a being and sin is not our nature.

        • naaria says:

          There are many who “latch on” accusations about Israel and then they become accusers. Vindication is also against the unwarranted accusations or our “self-loathing”.

          • alide1 says:

            Hi Naaria,
            Many do latch on accusations about Israel and become accusers, like you said, and God will judge them for that (vindication), but there’s nothing confusing about the wretched sin that was going on there. There was a pity party going on, yes, because Israel was self-righteous, and all the verses up til then and after then show all their actual sin (versus their claims that they were righteous). Not just there, but over and over, and then continues through Isaiah 59, terrible sin over and over. God came forth to intervene in the middle of all that when there was no one else to do that, as someone already said. None of those verses say anything about US being worthy and in fact, if you and I are reading the same bible, there is a whole lot about humility and contrite heart that God will not despise if we admit our sin. There is also a whole lot about the haughty who think they don’t need God or who think it is all about themselves instead of God, and God tells about the destruction he will bring on them. Bottom line is, it’s all about God and His Mercy because we are sinners, and we have vindication in him, and our light brought forth, only if we’ve believed the sin situation he already described in no uncertain terms. And that is the same story we see throughout the bible. God has mercy on the humble and contrite, and he is the one who provided a way in spite of our sin.

          • alide1 says:

            Also, that section you mentioned that interrupts the pity party of self-righteousness, if you read it in context, wasn’t an instruction manual on how to have vindication and be worthy. It was a contrast of what they were actually like versus what they should be like, showing they had no excuse (like all the rest of us). You just have to read the verses before and after it to see that clearly. And then it ends saying, as someone already said, that God intervened in spite of all the sin, when there wasn’t anyone else, and that a redeemer will come to the ones who repent. Repenting doesn’t and never did mean pretending a person’s own light is shining, it means accepting God’s verdict and admitting all he said is true and choosing to forsake our own natural sin because he alone is the light that shines forth when we turn to him from our sin.

      • Larry says:

        The Harry Potter bible study course?
        Personally I would like a bible study through superman. Maybe thats to old shool for the young crowd though.

  12. Alide1
    Repenting does not mean pretending that your own light is shining – repenting means facing God with a broken heart and acknowledging our sin – but it also means returning to obey God’s law – not with an attitude of self-righteousness – but with that same broken heart – not in order to achieve salvation – but because this is what returning to God means –

    • alide1 says:

      Yes, that was what I was trying to say.

      • David says:

        yourphariseefriend said in part: “but it also means returning to obey God’s law” If you add the word “law” then we can argue about which law, the first or the new (meaning the first of new covenant). If you keep it just at “obey God” then we can agree to obey him as He is revealed to us. To the Christian the revelation of God has continued into the “New” law and to the Jew only the “First” law, but we both believe we are obeying Him as we understand Him.

  13. LUX says:

    Naaria Paul is not distancing himself from the “pillars” (apostles) in Galatians. He is responding to a claim made by some of his opponents whom the Galatians came into contact with that he just inherrited his gospel from others. He is saying , no i didn’t , it came straight from God and I did not have contact with the other apostles till later so i could not have just learned it from them. Paul does not see himself as superior to the other apostles but the least of them.

  14. Dina says:


  15. robert2016 says:

    christians are full of twisting of text. all for human sacrificial ritual…..

  16. Blasater says:

    The book of Hebrews has many fatal flaws that actually destroy the religion of the Nazarene. Here is another one.

    Jesus is not God or “Yahweh”

    According to the church, Jesus is god in the “OT” . Their primary proof text is Psalm 102:25-27 and it’s NT counterpart Heb 1:8-12.

    James White uses these two proof texts as a means to convince JW’s and Unitarians that Jesus is not only “God” but “Yahweh”.

    Psalm 102:25-27

    25 In the beginning you (LORD or YHVH) laid the foundations of the earth,
    and the heavens are the work of your hands.
    26 They will perish, but you remain;
    they will all wear out like a garment.
    Like clothing you will change them
    and they will be discarded.
    27 But you remain the same,
    and your years will never end.

    Hebrews 1:8-10

    8 But about the Son he says, …..
    10 He also says,
    “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
    and the heavens are the work of your hands.
    11 They will perish, but you remain;
    they will all wear out like a garment.
    12 You will roll them up like a robe;
    like a garment they will be changed.
    But you remain the same,
    and your years will never end.”

    Thus, White will point out the Son is the subject of Heb 1 and YHVH is the subject of Ps 102, therefore Jesus is not only “god” but is “Yahweh (YHVH)”.

    Why this fails:

    A) Jesus nearly always refers to G-d as “father”.

    The problem for the church, is that YHVH is called “father” or YHVH Himself refers to Himself as “father” in Tanakh (OT).

    Isa 64:8 But now, O LORD (YHVH), you are our father; we are the clay, and you our potter; and we all are the work of your hand.

    Jer 31:9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.

    Jer 3:19 19 “Then I (YHVH) said,
    ‘How I would set you among My sons
    And give you a pleasant land,
    The most beautiful inheritance of the nations!’
    And I said, ‘You shall call Me, My Father,
    And not turn away from following Me.’

    Isa 63:16 Doubtless you are our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: you, O LORD (YHVH), are our father, our redeemer; your name is from everlasting.

    Deu 32:6 Do you therefore requite the LORD (YHVH), O foolish people and unwise? is not he your father that has bought you? has he not made you, and established you?

    1Ch 29:10 Wherefore David blessed the LORD before all the congregation: and David said, Blessed be you, LORD (YHVH) God of Israel our father, for ever and ever.

    Mal 1:6 A son honors his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is my honor? and if I be a master, where is my fear? says the LORD (YHVH) of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And you say, Wherein have we despised your name?

    Pro 3:12 For whom the LORD (YHVH) loves he corrects; even as a father, the son in whom he delights.

    Psa 103:13 Like as a father pities his children, so the LORD (YHVH) pities them that fear him.

    Exodus 4: 22 Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the LORD (YHVH) says: Israel is my firstborn son,
    Deut 1: 31 and in the wilderness. There you saw how the LORD (YHVH) your God carried you, as a father carries his son, all the way you went until you reached this place.”

    Deut 8: 5 Know then in your heart that as a man disciplines his son, so the LORD (YHVH) your God disciplines you.

    Deut 14: 1 You are the children of the LORD (YHVH) your God.
    Psalm 103: 13 As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD (YHVH) has compassion on those who fear him;

    Jer 3: 22 “Return, O faithless sons,
    I will heal your faithlessness.”
    “Behold, we come to You;
    For You are the LORD (YHVH) our God.

    Jer 31: 20 Is not Ephraim my dear son, the child in whom I delight? Though I often speak against him, I still remember him. Therefore my heart yearns for him; I have great compassion for him,” declares the LORD (YHVH).

    Mal 3: 17 “On the day when I act,” says the LORD (YHVH) Almighty, “they will be my treasured possession. I will spare them, just as a father has compassion and spares his son who serves him.

    The church claims in the theology that there is one “God” but in three “persons” and specifically that the Father is NOT the son. Likewise, the HS is not the Father.

    So, both Jesus (allegedly “god the son”) and the father (allegedy “god the father”) can not be the called the same “father” or make the claim to be the same person.

    In other words….Hebrews claims Jesus is YHVH but the Tanakh (OT) makes it clear that YHVH is “Father”…and Jesus makes it clear, his god is called “father”. Jesus can NOT be father and therefore the book of Hebrews is fatally flawed and church dogma is fatally flawed.

    B) Never once in the Tanakh (OT) does YHVH make any reference to a personage known as “god the son” . There are numerous “sons of G-d” but never a “god the son”. Nor is YHVH ever applied to any other personage.

    C) And regarding His name G-d said of YHVH or LORD: Exo 3 “ The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations.

    This is not merely a reference to YHVH having the property or nature of “God”, something that a future church could claim as merely something that can be shared among three personages in a trinity. This name, YHVH is the final revelation of His name that reveals His will through Torah and Tanakh.

    It is His name. His personal name. His name YHVH, ein od milvado. And there is no other besides Him.

    It is this name, YHVH that is called father. NO other personage can use or adopt this name ever. So even using the definition of the church and it’s trinity, Jesus can not be called YHVH since the Tanakh (OT) makes it clear…YHVH is LORD and Father to the Jewish people. Therefore, Jesus is not father and therefore not YHVH.

Leave a Reply to Dina Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.