Tsvi Jacobson on Hebrews 9:22

Tsvi Jacobson on Hebrews 9:22


In the New Testament book of Hebrews chapter 9:22 we read: “Without the shedding of blood there is no remission” When one reads this it is no wonder that Christian Evangelists and the Missionaries are so busy trying to convert the Jewish people who do not accept Jesus as Messiah or as divinity. If the Missionaries are correct we are in a deep problem. So it is incumbent upon us to examine the Hebrew Scriptures and see if Hebrews 9:22 is right.



We read of the blood sacrifices in the book of Leviticus and nobody would consider stating that they were not efficacious. In fact in Leviticus 17:11 we find that blood is not to be eaten as G-d has given it upon the altar to make atonement for sin. In fact Hebrews 9:22 is said to be based on Leviticus 17:11. There is a problem for the missionaries, Leviticus doesn’t say that without shedding of blood there is no remission. To make matters even worse the book of Hebrews 10:4 then says: “It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins” ?????? ????? (go figure) There you have two contradictions that the New Testament makes in commenting on our scriptures. With that straightened out I want to give you some examples of remission or forgiveness of sin without blood being involved.


In Leviticus chapter 5 where the trespass offerings are mentioned we find that a lamb or goat is to be brought and if one is not able to bring either of them two turtle doves or two pigeons are to be brought. If in fact one cannot afford these Numbers 5:11 states clearly one is allowed to bring a 10th part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering….and it further states: “IT IS A SIN OFFERING” Now think carefully when was the last time you saw any blood in a bag of flour you brought home from the super market?

The answer is self-evident.


King David was a holy man of G-d but even holy men sometimes fail. I am sure you know the story of how he lusted after the wife of Uriah and sent Uriah to the front lines where he died in battle. Nathan the Prophet comes to David and with a parable tells David that the sin that he committed was a henous one. David confesses his sin and is truly repentant and in 2 Samuel 12:13 Nathan says to David: “The L-rd has also put away your sin, you shall not die.” There was no blood atonement, not even two turtle doves, nor two pigeons, not even fine flour.

David repented and God forgave.


King Solomon dedicated the Temple and during this said a prayer to G-d in which he stated that if Israel in battle was carried away to another nation and they repented and sought the L-rd and prayed toward the city of Jerusalem and the Holy Temple for G-d to hear their prayer and forgive their sin (1 Kings 8:44-50 In 1 Kings 9:3 G-d says to Solomon: “I have heard your supplication” The ones Solomon was talking about did not offer sacrifice yet they would be heard and they would be forgiven. Again all this without a blood atonement.



Lastly the 10 tribes of Israel were involved in idolatry and Hosea the prophet was sent unto them exhorting them to repent and come back to the God of Israel whose habitation was in Jerusalem. Hear what Hosea said unto them:

“O Israel, return unto the L-rd your G-d; for you have fallen by your iniquity. Take with you WORDS: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously: so we will render the bullocks of our lips” (Hosea 14:1,2)

Notice in all of these examples the one thing missing is a blood sacrifice. It seems that the New Testament book of Hebrews 9:22 is something that the Hebrew Scriptures knows nothing about.

Thus the real question is why then does a Jew or a non-Jew for that matter need Jesus? Answer: They don’t and neither do you.

(And all scriptures quoted in this paper are from the Christian King James Bible)

Tsvi Jacobson

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, Tzvi Jacobson. Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to Tsvi Jacobson on Hebrews 9:22

  1. Shomer says:

    Shalom Tsvi

    I did a Bible study on forgiveness and Ezekiel 33:14-16 gives me the same information as your post above does;
    > Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right; 15 If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die. 16 None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.

    Is this forgivenes or is it not? For sure it is! Or in 2 Chronicles 7:14 King Solomon hears HaShem speak these words to him in a vision;
    > If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. (Quotations from KJV)

    …. etc. Thus, all Christian “evidence” for a human blood sacrifice are faked. Then, it says, that the blood of sheep and goats could not please “God”, so, a human sacrifice would have to make it. The same “God” punishes Jews and Israelites for human sacrifices prior to their deportations to Assyria / Babylon that later (without any prophetical announcement) sacrifices his only begotten son. The Tanakh is full of forgiveness upon repentance but since pagans don’t like this repentance they have to make their own concept that is even more sinful; it is idolatry with a graven image on a crucifix. This gospel (Greek; Euangelion) of the “blood of Jesus Christ the son of God” compared with the gospel of Moshe and the Neviim is an invention of New Babylon (Rome) – That’s it!

    No-one needs Jesus! Very true! The Christian religion pretends there is an eternal condemnation and only Jesus (the blood of Jesus) can save from it. Last year I walked from the Kotel along King David Hotel to our hotel in Derech Beth Lechem. On my way I got an inspiration; after I had left the dung gate, I was in GayHinom (Greek; Gehenna). This word in the “NT” was translated with “Hell”. Thus I was in Hell and it did not do any harm to me. The only fire I had seen there were fireworks of an Arab inhabitant. Eternal condemnation – no way! Two other words in Greek were translated with “Hell”; Hades and Tartaros. While Hades needs a threeheaded Hound (Kerberos/Cerberus) to protect the entrance that nobody leaves this firy agony any more, tartaros is the underworld without any firy agony. The only Hell in the “NT” is the Greek Hades and the Hebrew Sheol doesn’t have anything to do with fire or condemnation. So, the Christian Christ saves from a Hell that is a human invention, it does not exist! As a logical consequence the salvation by the blood of the “son of God” does not exist either.


    • paul summers says:

      Hello Tsvi

      Ref your comments on blood atonement.

      1. What seems to be a contradiction of a statement from your view of the NT is quite understandable. However looking at the Hebrew passage in its context from a believer of Jeshua then the text is quite understandable. From the Law point of view, yes sins were forgiven, but only on a temporary basis. On a down payment as it were.The temple system was, (Past tense) no longer functioning!,, only a copy of the the heavenly tabernacle. This was made very clear to Moses from the start. Also the Levitical system is also quoted by the prophets to be only temporal. So yes the OT saints sins were forgiven but only until a better sacrifice (Jeshua) came along. That is why the blood of goats etc cannot permanently take away sins. Of course you will object to this statement. You will say that blood is not required, just repentance. Well repentance is required, yes of course. repentance must come from the sinner but as the Law states, blood is also required. You cannot have atonement from mere repentance. If that was the case then what was the purpose of the sacrificial system in the first place? If the high priest was to enter into the Holy of Hollies without blood then he would have been struck dead! Thats the importance of the blood.

      Secondly your statement about the trespass offering. I agree with you that Lev ch 5 does state that no blood offering is required. However you need to read the chapter fully. It states that the priest will make an atonement for him. The individual is so poor that he cannot even afford a dove. The Law sates though that a blood sacrifice is the norm. So blood is still central to the atonement. If you read the chapter it says that the priest will cover the petitioners sin. What with? He will atone, not repent on his behalf. The flour is said to be AS a sin offering. The flour is placed on the altar according to the offering made by fire, (blood). The flour then, was in contact with blood, on the altar. Point to remember is that on the day of atonement blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat where all the sins of Israel were forgiven, especially the very very poor, who simply were so impoverished, they could only bring flour to the temple. So you were close to the truth than you think when you stated “No blood in flour”.

      • Annelise says:

        I think when it says that, it just means that the priest is going to offer what you brought to God, on your behalf.

        • Paul summers says:

          Yes thats it. But the priest must place it on the altar with the blood from the other sacrifices.


          • Annelise says:

            That is one reading, but it is not very clear at all and it’s far from a proof.

          • Paul summers says:

            well it does “on the alter of sacrifice, and AS a sin offering. Flipping the discussion the way, Tsvi says” This is a sin offering” and highlights the point of no blood. So by that no blood required. However the emphasis is on the very repeated wording “This is a sin offering” Meaning that even this Trespass offering is still connected to blood “As a sin offering. “

          • Yehuda says:

            So Paul. Let’s see if I have this straight:

            1) Anything that functions as a sin offering must involve blood, thus
            2) The flour offering must be operating by way of commingling
            with blood, because
            3) The verses repeatedly refer to it as “a sin offering”, and in doing so, it can’t mean that the flour offering has atonement efficacy of its own, thus warranting the name “sin offering”, it must
            4) be the contact with other blood that warrants the title sin offering, because
            5) …Anything that functions as a sin offering must involve blood.

            Ok. I got it now.

            Am I the only one who notices the peculiar difficulty Christians seem to have in recognizing when they have engaged in circular reasoning:

        • Paul summers says:


          Well I dont think its circular reasoning at all. I dont pre suppose any notion from my own thinking. The scriptures teach by reasonable deduction that blood is central to Jewish repentance.
          If it wasnt for lambs blood put on the doorposts Israel as a nation would have suffered badly and would stayed in slavery. So as far as I can see blood from the Lamb sets men free.
          However keeping with the precise topic. I truly cannot see why Lev 17 v 11 warrants any other meaning for Jews in the temple times. Blood atones your soul.

          • LarryB says:

            Do you know why lambs blood in particular was chose?

          • Yehuda says:

            “The scriptures teach by reasonable deduction that blood is central to Jewish repentance…”

            No. They teach us that blood plays an important and efficacious role in atonement under certain circumstances. You mention “in temple times”. It would be wise to consider the implications of that.

            This is where the christian argument tries to get clever…by using words like “central role” to connote “exclusive role” which of course it does not as demonstrated by the examples Tzvi provided, which you have not addressed.

            …and round and round we go.

            It appears though that you are at least abandoning the preposterously circular suggestion that calling the flour offerings “sin offerings” in itself defines them as blood offerings without accepting that definition as a premise..

          • Paul summers says:


            I never said, well I thought I never said the Flour was a sin offering. The scriptures do say, As a sin offering. The immiediate context here is trespass offering. First bring a animal. Failing that God demands something to be offered by the sinner. In this instance, Flour. To be blunt a last resort. Do not come empty handed.
            The atonement here in this instant is still by the blood of the sacrificial system. The sinner however can only bring flour. God sees the heart of the sinner.
            Not 100% But I think thats what Heb ch 9 v 22 means?

          • Paul summers says:


            Ok here is a question. You state that blood atonement is not central to Jewish atonement but it does play an important role in certain circumstances. Would you then say that blood AND repentance goes hand in hand. 50~50 ish?

          • Yehuda says:

            I would say that when there is an extant temple and the ability to utilize it for the sacrificial system, then it is a requirement for certain types of sins.

          • Yehuda says:

            BTW Paul,

            A couple of posts back you yourself said with regard to the flour sin offerings:

            “The atonement here in this instant (sic) is still by the blood of the sacrificial system. The sinner however can only bring flour. God sees the heart of the sinner.

            You actually almost have it correct here. Indeed God sees the heart of the sinner and is fully capable of granting atonement of even the poor man’s meager offering, of his heart is right. That much is expressly in the scripture.

            However, your assertion that even in that instance it is still by the blood of the sacrificial system remains your own unsubstantiated conjecture.


      • Tsvi Jacobson says:

        Hello Paul: Supposition isn’t scripture Paul. You said Blood of animals atoned temporarily????? I didn’t see it. But I don’t wear blood stained glasses either. You didn’t even answer one of the examples I gave. David was forgiven without blood, The soldiers in captivity couldn’t offer a blood sacrifice yet 1 Kings 8 states forgiveness was theirs by repentance alone. And Hosea’s bullocks of our lips is prayer of repentance.
        Paul you cannot find one verse in the Hebrew Scriptures that even mentions an offering of a human being as a blood sacrifice. All human sacrifices were only offered to pagan G-ds not the G-d of Israel who said about human sacrifice in Jeremiah 7:31 “TO BURN
        of the New Testament. Finally G-d says: “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man in whom there is no help. His breath goes forth he returns to the earth and in that very day his thoughts perish” (Psalm 146;3,4) I sense you are a truth seeker, I hope you will prayerfully study the scriptures in my first paper. Tsvi

    • Tsvi Jacobson says:

      Shomer Liked your reply. By the way I danced in Hinnon (not because it was hellfire hot 🙂 but just to show that there is no eternal hell fire in true Scriptures. It took a twisted mind to conjure up such a teaching. The True G-d says “The soul that sins shall die (not fry) Such a false teaching makes Adolph Hitler a saint compared to the belief of the Christians. At least he killed people before putting them in ovens.
      (Forgive my illustration he was a fiend but the Christian makes G-d out to be worse than

  2. PAUL
    The word “fulfilled” in John 13:18 – does it mean “fulfilled” does it mean “paraphrase” or does it mean “cherry picking”?

    • Paul summers says:

      Must be Fulfilled, as cherry picking and paraphrase are non scriptual. X

    • Paul summers says:

      Hello YPF

      After revisiting this topic, there is not really anything new to add here.

      John ch 13 discuss a point of history. A incident happened, a prophesied incident with a particular individual, in this context, Judas Iscariot.

      The overall theme of the incident was betrayal by a friend. Going into the context a little further, the incident details and reveals more. John discuss and reveals the point that a person who is a friend of another eats and shares a bread meal with someone close. In a Jewish frame of reference this meal shows friendship, fellowship and of course a Judaism festival remembrance.

      In history past a psalm had been written. Within the psalm is a quote, of equal parallelism here in John. The psalm v 9, (only 9) is qouted in John v 18. John only and very clearly quotes Jesus words, that is v9 of the psalm.

      The quote is singular in John from a singular quote from the psalm. To make the reader understand even more is the wording scripture, which indicates the verse in question.

      John or Jesus never said the whole scripture of the psalm, its never used once.

      If you want to use the word cherry picked then thats fine, that depends if cherry picking is positively or negatively used.

      I could say, Jesus cherrypicked the choicest, best singular cherry from the tree, because all the other cherries on the branch were not ready as yet. That wouldnt be a foolish act, but a wise wise.

      Jesus only used the verse, cherry, that was required.

      If Jesus had said, let all the psalm, all the cherries then I would agree that there would be some discrepancie here, but He doesnt. But only one verse, one cherry is in focus here, contextually. The act of denial with a friend.


      • Paul Summers No one is discussing the “wisdom” (or craftiness) that is inherent in the act of cherry picking a phrase out of a verse – we are discussing honesty. To tell one’s audience that Scripture has been ‘fulfilled” when in fact it has been violated is simply dishonest. It might be a clever advertising gimmick that will suck in the gullible but it is not honest.

        1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

        • Dina says:

          Paul fails to realize that quoting out of context is a dishonest tactic no matter who does it. Okay for thee but not for me? Do as I say but not as I do?

        • Paul summers says:

          Im not sure where a violation of Scripture has occurred here? The only violation contextually is the lifting of a heel against a friend.

          As always, we will have to agree to disagree.

          • Paul the purpose of this discussion is not “to agree to disagree” – we were doing that before this discussion started. The purpose of this discussion is to expose the deception of the Christian missionary campaign. And the fact that you have no answer except for closing your eyes and saying that you see no violation tells me that you also see the deception

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

        • Paul summers says:

          Your view is just that a view.
          To flip the the arguement as dishonest on Jesus, John’s, mine or Missionary tatics is presumptive based purley on your opinion. You have a view which you are quite in titled to. But your starting point or foundation is based on non textual views. You can see clearly by simple application that the psalm in question is about David feeling abandoned and denied by a close friend, the whole theme, as I stated was about fellowship and communal meals.
          By simple comparison one can see the two events are similar. You are confusing the idea that the psalm, from a Christian perspective is a word for word prohecy of Jesus, but at some point Chtistians are back pedelling. But that view from you, is miscalculated from the beginning. Thats why you are convinced by your view.

          Not all the Psalms are 100% Messianic directed. Yes they point to the Messianic kingdom, there are many comparisons on different emotions that David felt through his life, they are all quite varied in degrees. But they are a collection of praises also. Anyway this context is just a comparison on a emotion called betrayal.

          You simply cant see that the similar comparison of betrayal which Jesus felt, was that of the same that David experienced also.

          So are you emphactly telling me that Jesus and David didn’t experience a same emotional response to a identical situation?

          • Paul
            In order that the Scripture be “fulfilled” is not a comparison – many evil people were also betrayed by friends – This “fulfillment” is used to “prove” that Jesus is the Messiah – that my friend is dishonest

        • robert2016 says:


          Isaiah 44:6 : “I am the first and the last; and beside me there is no other.”

          i know for quite some time now that jewish face jerusalem 3 times and make prayer. verses like is 44:6 are mentioned in your prayer, right?

          jesus being jewish would have to mention that above (is 44:6) in his prayer at least once, right?
          at least one or twice in the week, prayer to God must include the verse i quoted above, right?

          if such prayer is mentioned, then how can trinitarians say that god has persons beside him?

          • Robert2016 The liturgy was more fluid back then so I cannot be confident that he quoted that verse but I think it is obvious that when he quoted the Shema (such as in Mark 12:29) to his Jewish audience that they were not thinking about a trinity or an incarnation. Besides, when Isaiah spoke the words yo are quoting there is no question that his Jewish audience wasn’t thinking of a trinity and Isaiah himself wasn’t thinking of a trinity

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Paul summers says:


            Putting aside your argument of Jesus “failing scripture fulfilment “, can you please answer my last paragraph question.

          • Paul Summers
            To answer your question – if Jesus did not experience the same thing that David did (being betrayed by a friend) – perhaps he did but so did many people from Osama bin Laden to Julius Caesar – how is this relevant to our discussion?

  3. Paul
    If someone claims to fulfill verse a but says verse b doesn’t apply to him and they are in the same Psalm – would you agree that it deserves to be called “cherry-picking”?

    • Paul summers says:


      It is relevant because the relevance is Jesus heart and Davids heart. Anyone other than these two is totally non important and completely non contextually applicable.

      • Paul Can you explain how the verse refers to Jesus any more than it refers to Osama bin Laden?

        1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

        • Paul summers says:

          Hello YPF
          To be totally honest I think your reasoning and level of “Theology ” is at level not constructive or mature enough for me to continue.

          I wish you all the best for the future.

        • robert2016 says:

          if the animal which carried away sin tried to return again would it be sent out again?
          if christians are seeing jesus as an animal which carries away sins, then will they be returning him again into the wilderness?

  4. paul summers says:

    Yes I do understand your line of questioning here. The Psalms of course were written by/for King David and Solomon.

    I’m sure we would both agree that the theme of the psalms are Messianic I would say that Some directly and some indirectly. As King David and Solomon were righteous men before God they were however just like you and I, fallen and have the sin nature. For at most quite a large number of the psalms are the words of David, either exulting God, lamenting or praying for help etc.

    As I believe the Messiah of Israel is both God and Man then these verses are interchangeable in application and context.

    Jeshua referred to the verse in question. Thats all. Not the entire psalm. To me I see no problem with this. Why? because God is Holy and sinless. I believe that only God Himself can deliver Israel/world from sin, not a messiah who is a flawed man and not God. To establish Gods Kingdom and to destroy all of Israels enemies can only be achieved by the God of Israel Himself. This will of course happen on Messiahs return.

    So to answer your question, Jeshua fulfilled only what was applicable to Him. If you want to say cherry picking, thats fine by me.

    A question I have is this. Is God limited to anything. Is there anything that Adonai is NOT CAPABLE OFF because He is insufficient in His abilities?


    • Jim says:


      Forgive me for saying so, but you too readily dismiss the fact that the verse is cherry picked. In fact, you give a great definition of the term when you say that the verses are “interchangeable in application and context”. This is unacceptable. We cannot say that someone fulfilled prophecies by taking a sentence here and there and applying them to him but forgetting the rest. That’s cheating. How much would you have to take for the practice to be legitimate? A sentence? Matthew takes even less than that in quoting from Hosea 11.1.

      The fact that you are willing to accept cherry picked verses means that you don’t accept Jesus based on the verses. Rather, you accept your interpretation of the verses based on your prior belief in Jesus. And this is a problem. Missionaries approach people, and they say, “Jesus must be the Messiah. Look how he fulfilled these prophecies.” But the only way one could understand this psalm to have been talking about Jesus at all is to already have believed in him first, which means that it isn’t a proof. Reading the psalm by itself would never have led one to believe it was about the messiah in the first place (just like Hosea 11.1). And it could never have been understood as talking about the kind of messiah Christians mean, a divine and sinless figure.

      But we are fortunate that the gospels employ such techniques. They do give us an easy way of testing the truth of their claims. If Jesus used this verse to talk about himself, claiming to have fulfilled it, now I have a claim I can verify. And when I see that he selectively applies it to himself, I can see that he is either ignorant or deceptive, or that his followers that applied it to him are one or both of those things. Now, I don’t need to believe them at all.

      If you are like me, at first such an honest look is a difficult one. I grew up a Christian, with a strong belief in Jesus. But a few years back, I realized I needed to test my beliefs. I carefully scrutinized them, and I found that the NT is incompatible with Torah, not only because of the abuses the Church practiced on the Tanach, but the gulf that separates the two systems philosophically. The fact that the gospel writers and apologists argue that Jesus fulfilled these “prophecies” was really a blessing, because it gave an obvious point of entry to begin an investigation. You too, I think, if you will test the claims of Christianity in the light of prophecy, rather than reading prophecy in light of Christianity will come to the same conclusion.

      Please forgive me for intruding on a conversation of which I was not part.


      • Nikki says:

        Holy-moly, Jim — I’ve NEVER HEARD IT EXPRESSED BETTER — And from a Christian, no less! I am moved and delighted to compliment a rational person who has thought this through — AND capable AND willing to express your realization and share it. I applaud you and you’ve made this world a little bit better today – one soul at a time. Be blessed.

        • Jim says:


          Thank you for your complimentary words. I am very encouraged by them. Of course, I’m no longer a Christian but adhere to the Sheva Mitzvot B’Nei Noach. One day, I would like to join the nation of Israel. Be well.


    • Jim says:


      One other point:

      Your question is irrelevant and a deflection. It dismisses the previous argument from R’ Blumenthal.

      But in answer, I will say this, that God is capable for forgiving someone without sacrificing an innocent being. Do you say that he “is NOT CAPABLE OF because He is insufficient in his abilities?”

      I guess that’s two points.


    • Dina says:

      Hi Paul.

      Thanks for bringing greater clarity to this discussion. You have shown clearly where we agree and disagree. We agree that what Jesus has done fits the definition of cherry picking. We disagree that cherry picking is an intellectually honest way to prove a point. I say it’s dishonest. Remember my example with the politicians Alan Grayson and Daniel Webster? Go back and reread that comment; I believe I posted it on “A Conversation about Isaiah 53.” It illustrates what is wrong with cherry picking or picking verses out of context.

      I will give you another example: Those who defended slavery in the United States picked the scriptural verse that Canaan would be slave of slaves to his brothers to justify this despicable practice. They ignored the scriptural warning that those who steal humans to sell as slaves deserve the death penalty. They also ignored the verses about how to treat slaves and the prohibition against returning an escaped slave. So you see, cherry picking is dishonest and dangerous.

      My challenge to you is this: would it be acceptable for anyone else to do what Christian scripture does when it cherry picks verses? Why or why not? If not, why is it acceptable in Christian scripture?


      • Paul summers says:

        Hello again Dina

        I wholeheartedly understand your comment in regard to slavery and canaan. That is a prime example of the misuse of Scripture to gain ones own perversed end.

        However, to use that argument here, in the context is a misuse in itself. If you read one of my last statements or question regarding the text, I narrowed the scripture in question, to a comparison of betrayal, because that’s all it is, a comparison of hurt.

        Do you agree, David in the Psalm felt betrayed, (lifting of the heel)?………..

        Do you agree that Jesus in Johns account felt betrayed (lifting the heel)?……..

        Your answers can only be, Yes and Yes, or Yes and no.

        If you answer no, you are going to have to explain why you think Jesus doesn’t feel betrayed.

        If the entire psalm was quoted by Jesus, then the entire psalm would have been recorded. We only have what is written. To go beyond that is conjecture.

        This is copied.
        The book of psalms could be summarised in a single sentance. “The psalms are the poetic versions of the messsge of the Law and prophets”. The book of psalms is often regarded as purley devotional reading. While it is certainly useful as such, it would be wrong to limit it to only that. The whole book of psalms is full of profound doctrine and deep spiritual truths couched in poetic terms.

        King David, not the Messiah felt betrayed by a friend, friends. David could never state that he was sinless, because he new he was. A mortal sinner.
        Jesus, The Son of David, King Messiah, felt betrayed. Jesus never sinned, nor was He ever to sin. The psalm isnt just about who is or who isnt a sinner, in its Johns context, its about betrayal.

  5. Fred says:

    I would like to address your first point, Rav B.

    >>>>To make matters even worse the book of Hebrews 10:4 then says: “It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins” ?????? ????? (go figure) There you have two contradictions that the New Testament makes in commenting on our scriptures. With that straightened out I want to give you some examples of remission or forgiveness of sin without blood being involved.<<<<

    Now, many believe it was Paul who wrote Hebrews, so I will write as though it was. Paul's whole point is that while without shedding of blood there is no remission, he goes on to say, as you pointed out, that the blood of animals cannot "take away sins". What Paul meant by this was that while atonement came through animal sacrificial blood, even that could not literally take sin away in the sense that these people would still sin after they made their yearly sacrifice. It could only offer forgiveness and atonement for the wrongdoing that would have to be repeated over and over because the human nature , which was considered "fallen" was not changed. The "sin problem" was not solved by the Mosaic system, according to Paul ( Romans 5-8 expands on this idea).

    Hebrew 10:1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come and not the very image of those things, can never, with those sacrifices which they offered continually year by year, make those who come unto it perfect.

    People would "offer the same sacrifices year after year…and could not make those who approach perfect". Again, the point is that blood sacrifices, although needed for atonement, did not change the nature of man from one inclined to sin, to a perfect person who is not inclined to sin.Therefore the Mosaic system is seen by Paul as a failed covenant. For Paul, the answer was that the blood of Jesus ( God forbid) not only atoned for sin, but cured from sin. And if this [lan of salvation does not have the intended effect, you are in big trouble:"

    Hebrew 10: 26-3 "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”[e] 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

    This soul perfection spoken of by Paul in Romans and Hebrews is really the heart of his message and effectively the heart of the Christian message. Animal blood, which cannot change one's inclinations, only pointed to Jesus' blood, which can and does change the person into a perfect human being, having the indwelling spirit of God, which cannot sin. Thus, Christianity "solves sin", while Judaism does not. Jews are considered pre-gospel "proto-Christians".

    This gospel is an amazing thing and an amazing concept. There is only one problem with it that I can see…it does not work. And Christian commentators over the centuries have tried everything to account for the failure of these promises:

    Some put the success of the gospel in the future, usually after death.
    Others say that the failure is not with the gospel , but with the Christian, who is not yielding to the leading and promptings of the holy spirit.

    Every Christian who has ever walked the earth has averred that Jesus was the only "perfect person", yet, the ability to make the believer perfect , by Jesus in the heart, is the greatest promise of the gospel.

    That is the biggest contradiction in the Christian religion- the gospel promises perfection and the death of the evil inclination, or "fallen nature", yet they teach that Jesus was the only perfect person and is celebrated and worshiped as such. Apparently, Christianity gave up on Paul's "good news" centuries ago. And rightly so.

  6. Paul summers says:


    Some good points here.

    The NT specifically here in the texts that you quoted, are speaking about perfection, to be Christ like. A complete holy restoration doesnt actually happen until the resurrection. The texts do encourage the believers to strive in life to be Chris like, but because the sin nature still exists within man, the two nature’s are constantly at odds with each other. Something Paul spoke about in Romans.
    The spiritual dead side of one becomes alive once they believe in Christ, but of course the physical flesh is still alive and sinful, and will always be sinnful. The main difference in a believer is now one is aware and convicted of the sin nature, something they didnt see and understand prior to believing. But the flesh being weak shows that the sin nature will always be present within man. Its not a case of being a sinner because I sin, but I sin because im a sinner. Its the nature.

    The NT teaching in reference to blood atonement is going from a temporary covering of sin, to complete forgiveness.
    The point of perfection in both testaments, was never for the person still present here on earth, but at the point of death. This is shown in the daily, weekly, monthly and yearly sacrifices. If it was complete at the point of the animal sacrifice, then one would only need to atone the once. But they didnt and couldnt achieve this, so completeness was not the case, as one was constantly sacrificing for sins, even the priests.

    I think ive already repeated the theme on your comments, but the point Im trying to make is perfection is never obtained while we are still in the flesh, its obtained at the ressuection.

  7. Fred says:

    >>>>>>A complete holy restoration doesnt actually happen until the resurrection.<<<>>>>A complete holy restoration doesnt actually happen until the resurrection.<<<<<

    Yes, Paul, I had already mentioned that one of the ways Christians try to get around this fact is by putting the fulfillment of the promise after their death, in the future, just like all the messianic prophecies that Jesus did not fulfill are all kicked down the road. But the truth is that Paul and Jesus both promise this perfection and goes into effect as soon as one "accepts Christ", otherwise one could say that animal sacrifices ALSO make for a perfect person "at the resurrection", with no way to prove it. Paul wrote that the sacrifices needed to be done every year because the people were still sinning and sin was not solved, whereas Jesus' "one time for all time" sacrifice changed the person into one that did not need to "bring the same sacrifice year after year". Such a statement has no bearing on what happens after death, but what purpose and effect the gospel is to have in the present, which is why the Christian religion claims to be "based on better promises".This culminates in Hebrew 10 :26- 31, where the person who does not change into a person who longer chooses to sin can look forward to a burning damnation…because Jesus cannot be crucified twice. There are many bulls and goats, there was only one Jesus. That is the entire point of the book of Hebrews.

    This is the plain message of Christianity and was Paul's selling point of the religion. That Christianity has chosen to explain away its primary function and its greatest promise leaves it as a hollow belief system that promises only what cannot be experienced in one's life, but only after they die. To say, as Christians do, that conversion is a gradual evolutionary process and that one will continue to sin until he dies and then God will wave a magic wand and make him perfect just because he believes in Jesus does violence to the plain teachings of the New Testament and the entire reason for Paul's discourse in Hebrews.

    I know Christians cannot accept this , so I do not expect you to do anything but to try to explain away Paul's and Jesus' words concerning the soul perfection that is promised during one's life, not after they die. But regardless, it is what the NT teaches.

  8. Paul summers says:


    Im not sure if there is confusion here?

    Your last statement on soul perfection during ones life’s time, not after they die. This is completely contrary on what the bible teaches and what I said earlier.

    Your second to last paragraph seems more inline with scripture, leaving out the magic wand, but then you seem to state that the promise is in life??

    I might be reading you incorrectly?

    The only perfection believers have in this life is faith only in the Messiah. That faith, at the point of believing in Christ as there Messiah, is the saving faith which one is borne anew.When one believes and is born anew/again, They have the assurance of a actual perfected resurrected bodie to come. The sin nature remains in life, sin still remains. Death still remains. But the promise of a perfected resurrection also remains. The following text from Corinthians is the promise for believers at the point of the rapture for the Church only.

    This is copied.

    50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”[g]

    55 “O Death, where is your sting?[h]
    O Hades, where is your victory?”[i]
    56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

    58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.

  9. Fred says:

    Sorry. read Hebrews. That was the plain reading and meaning. It was Paul’s selling point as to why Christianity was better than Judaism, why faith in Jesus was better than legalism. You can pretend Hebrews was not written if you want, Christians have been doing that for millennia. So I guess you can ignore this one as well:

    1John 3:5-7
    “You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;…”

    So according to you and John NOBODY knows Jesus!

    Do not confuse Immortality for victory from sin. Your text from Corinthians is not about sin, but about human mortality. It says nothing about continuing to sin until you die.

    I agree that no man, at least that I ever knew, ever stopped sinning entirely. That is why the New testament is wrong about the nature of man and the nature of atonement. In REALITY and in practice Christianity does not offer anything that Judaism did not already offer, except man-worship and the rejection of God’s laws.

  10. Paul summers says:


    Well of course I do believe in the book of Hebrews. Its a beautiful read.

    Of course the book was written by a Jew, and specifically for Jews. Unfortunately like most, it has been miss read and miss understood. The book was a warning to the Jewish believers about not going back into Judaism because of the persecution there were suffering. Its a Jewish book, mainly for Jews, in the context, not gentiles.

    There are 5 warnings in the book. On the whole its about the danger of Recieving physical punishment in this life, (AD70) and the uprising, and then losing rewards in the next life. The book is never about spiritual salvation, but physical salvation. The NT claerly teaches one can never lose their spiritual salvation.

    Your Johns passage is talking about the sin of non belief in the Messiah. Its not a passage on habitual, generally or genetic sin that dwells in all mankind. No one who sins (no belief) has seen Him for who He is, and no one has fellowship with Him, Messiah. Whats true also is that one will break fellowship with Christ if one falls into habitual, unrepentant sin. Salvation isnt lost though, just the reality of Judgement in this life and the loss of spiritual rewards in the next.

  11. Fred says:

    >>>>>Your Johns passage is talking about the sin of non belief in the Messiah<<<<>>>>On the whole its about the danger of Recieving ( sic) physical punishment in this life, (AD70) and the uprising, and then losing rewards in the next life. The book is never about spiritual salvation, but physical salvation. <<<<<

    If it is as you say, then we ARE talking about perfection in the temporal. You can't have it both ways- You can;t say that the perfection it speaks of is only spiritual, in the future and is speaking of the resurrection and at the same time say that the punishment for continuing in sin is a temporal one that has no bearing on salvation, the spirit or the resurrection. The author makes no distinction between the temporal and the spiritual, and if he does, then it is obviously the temporal he is speaking of when it comes to perfection. Otherwise, he has nothing to sell to the Jews. His point is that the blood of bulls does not change one's human nature to one that does not sin, in the temporal. It makes no sense whatsoever to say that Paul is speaking of Jewish imperfection in the temporal and Christian perfection at the resurrection. How would he know that the blood of bulls does not atone in the general/spiritual sense? The Torah says it does. That argument makes no sense. He would be offering a speculative/imaginary result ( Perfection because of Jesus at the resurrection) and comparing it with an experiential/empirically proven "non" result ( atonement by repentance and sacrifice). If that is the case, then we can put this argument on the trash heap with all the rest, since the comparison holds no water. In other words, you seem to believe Paul is comparing apples to oranges. If that is the case, he makes no point worthy of considering.

    I have learned over the years that circular reasoning is the mainstay of Christian theology.

  12. Fred says:

    >>>>4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s[b] seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. <<<<

    As you can plainly see, this is about sin in the general sense, not "the sin of disbelief in Jesus". On the contrary, there is not a single word here about a sin of disbelief, only sinning in the physical sense of breaking the law. Verse 9 is EXACTLY what the book of Hebrews is talking about when it speaks of "the blood of bulls cannot make people perfect". It the same message. It is the guaranteed victory by the indwelling spirit vs the futility of Jewish legalism that does not make people perfect, but remain "sinners". If it is anything but that, then the message is meaningless and Christianity offers nothing that Judaism did not already offer.

  13. robert2016 says:

    “Verse 9 is EXACTLY what the book of Hebrews is talking about when it speaks of “the blood of bulls cannot make people perfect”

    and the blood of jesus is created and finite. his flesh is created and finite.
    finite man who used to walk and run around.
    how does a human being get from walking and talking to “true god of true god”?

  14. Fred says:

    >>>>how does a human being get from walking and talking to “true god of true god”?

    Because it was a theological necessity. It took about three hundred years for the narrative to have Jesus go from being a teacher to being messiah, from messiah to being the son of god, and from being the son of god to being god himself. It is an historical fact that the entire trinity doctrine took over 350 years to develop.

  15. alley grater says:

    I searched this page for “as a sin offering”. It came up a few times, allegedly as a quote from Leviticus (not Numbers) 5:11. The message being that a flour offering is weaker than an animal offering. But the more correct translation of the Hebrew is “for a sin offering”; i.e. the flour does the complete function of a sin offering.

    Significantly, that very verse ends with words referring to the flour offering, “for it *is* a sin offering. Sounds like first class….

    Additionally, the expression “for a sin offering”, or to be less precise, “as a sin offering”, appears numerous times times in Leviticus 5–usually in the context of an animal sacrifice, no differently than in the context of the flour/non-animal. This indicates that unless one has preconceived notions, there is no significant difference between animal and non-animal sacrifices.

Leave a 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.