|
|
|
|
|
| Atonement and Sacrifice
Posted: 11/14/2007 7:46:16 PM | I feel compelled to make this thread because of disagreements in at least two threads over the means by which sin is expiated according to two of the faiths that have sprung from the Middle East, Judaism and Christianity.
Christians cite Leviticus 17:11 as a proof text to justify the later death of Jesus on the cross as his blood was shed for the remission of sins for the world and the defeat of the eternal death.
Jews on the other hand do cite Leviticus 17:11 as PART of the several ways sin may be atoned from.
Let's look at the verse:
The KJV has it thusly - "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."
NASV - "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.'
NIV - "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life."
The Christian Bible cross-references it with Hebrews 9:22
KJV - "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."
NASV - "And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."
NIV - "In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."
One may "almost say"?
Well is it or isn't it?
Let's keep this clean, no prosletyzing please, but I would like to ask a few questions directly.
Firstly does Lev. 17:11 state or does it not, that blood is the ONLY means of remission of sin? Hebrews 9:22 in some translations "seems" to say that but that is not relevant...that is a later Christian teaching...I am asking you - does Leviticus 17:11 teach this.
Secondly can you show in the "Old Testament" that in other occasions, sin was not forgiven by means other than blood sacrifice or that means other than sacrifice were not used, encouraged or recommended for forgiveness of sin by G-d or his prophets.
There is a complete difference between the way Jews and Christians view sin and atonement. It is really diametrically opposed. This is not to say that the two faiths cannot peacefully co-exist...however, there has been a great deal of misrepresentation of the Jewish faith and its beliefs by certain individuals on the PoF forums and for those of us who appreciate honest and fair exchanges of information and equal representation of faiths I think a factual discussion about these differences should take place in the open. | |
|
| Atonement and Sacrifice
Posted: 11/14/2007 8:04:21 PM |
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Treasury of Scripture KnowledgeConcordance and Hebrew/GreekList Available
Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.
I don't understand where this blood thing comes from as it states in Genesis that it is the BREATH that causes life... when did this change? Was it only after the expulsion from Eden? Because by the time of Cain and Abel... it was BLOOD Yahweh was after (fruits and vegees are a proper sacrifice to a GODDESS..ie: earth, fertility, grain and grapes stuff..seen a lot in greek and roman mythology as a proper gift to Demeter, Goddess of fertility [and other goddesses devoted to fertility] and the earth's abundance) But Yahweh seems to find this an affront (Abel's first fruits offering, as he was a farmer, not a hunter or husbandman) and wants the blood of a murdered animal ("thou shalt not kill" seems kind of moot from this point forward as we are expected to kill to please God), and later a human sacrifice, yet he never said he gave Adam blood and he lived...he gave him BREATH, and he became a living soul. So why the shift? What happened that removed the life from the breath and bestowed it in the blood? Did the aquisition of knowledge change our biology?
This has always confused me. | |
|
mak68
|
Joined: 10/9/2007
Msg: 3 | |
| Atonement and Sacrifice
Posted: 11/14/2007 8:17:19 PM | Firstly does Lev. 17:11 state or does it not, that blood is the ONLY means of remission of sin? Hebrews 9:22 in some translations "seems" to say that but that is not relevant...that is a later Christian teaching...I am asking you - does Leviticus 17:11 teach this.
From what I can ascertain, one has to also read the passage before it to put it in better context:
Lev. 17:10"If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them(A) eats any blood, I will(B) set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.
Lev. 17:11(A) For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar(B) to make atonement for your souls,(C) for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.
It would seem to me that this passage is not even concerned with sacrifice, but the consumption of blood, which god prohibits as cited in Leviticus 17:10. I read it as god considers blood to be sacred, and not for consumption, simple really. | |
|
| Atonement and Sacrifice
Posted: 11/14/2007 8:21:53 PM | Secondly can you show in the "Old Testament" that in other occasions, sin was not forgiven by means other than blood sacrifice or that means other than sacrifice were not used, encouraged or recommended for forgiveness of sin by G-d or his prophets.
to justify the later death of Jesus on the cross as his blood was shed for the remission of sins for the world and the defeat of the eternal death.
for the record I don't believe that it says 'eternal death' but instead more correctly specifies 'death'
As far as OT references regarding the shedding of blood, according to the law, I believe this was the first situation the scriptures make reference to this ..
Exodus 24
3 When Moses went and told the people all the LORD's words and laws, they responded with one voice, "Everything the LORD has said we will do." 4 Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said.
He got up early the next morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve stone pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 Then he sent young Israelite men, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as fellowship offerings to the LORD. 6 Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he sprinkled on the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, "We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey."
8 Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words." | |
|
mak68
|
Joined: 10/9/2007
Msg: 5 | |
| Atonement and Sacrifice
Posted: 11/14/2007 8:26:12 PM | ^^^Hmmmmm, I fail to see where this sacrifice is used to forgive sins. It seems more to be a ritual of accordance with the covenant, a bonding if you will..
But it does not mention blood being used for the forgiveness of sins. | |
|
| Atonement and Sacrifice
Posted: 11/14/2007 8:32:04 PM | ^^^Hmmmmm, I fail to see where this sacrifice is used to forgive sins. It seems more to be a ritual of accordance with the covenant, a bonding if you will..
But it does not mention blood being used for the forgiveness of sins.
good observation and is also true, and I think that the confusion comes by trying to make a fulfillment from what was meant to only be a shadow of what was to come....
but
It is all part and parcel of purification....and explained in the letter to the Hebrews...
Hebrews 9
1Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. 3Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.
6When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. 7But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. 9This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.
11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! | |
|
| Atonement and Sacrifice
Posted: 11/14/2007 8:52:41 PM |
does Lev. 17:11 state or does it not, that blood is the ONLY means of remission of sin? My reading of Leviticus 17 includes the context around it. If you start around Lev 17:5 you'll see that the section is talking about sacrifices, not remission of sin. It goes into the proper way to make sacrifices, then gets around to saying that the blood is the effective part, and then goes on in 17:14 to say that misuse of blood is forbidden.
I see nothing there that says that blood is the only thing that could be used for remission of sin, but in fairness, you do have to remember that at the time of Leviticus, sacrifice was the only accepted way to do it. So I can see an argument for that case, even though I, as a Jew, don't accept that interpretation.
While the Temple existed in Jerusalem the Priests there made quite an effort to obtain a monopoly on sacrifices, and have all atonement and various offering go to them.
And you thought that the annual Yom Kippur fast was difficult!  | |
|
mak68
|
Joined: 10/9/2007
Msg: 8 | |
| Atonement and Sacrifice
Posted: 11/14/2007 9:07:26 PM | ^^^Indeed, it specifically mentions a fellowship sacrifice, nothing on atonement of sins.
Lev 17:5 This is so the Israelites will bring to the LORD the sacrifices they are now making in the open fields. They must bring them to the priest, that is, to the LORD, at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and sacrifice them as fellowship offerings.
Interesting to note as well, the sacrifices cannot be made just anywhere, but a specific place, the "Tent of Meeting" as it were, in front of the tabernacle of the lord:
Lev. 17:3-4 Any Israelite who sacrifices an ox, [a] a lamb or a goat in the camp or outside of it 4 instead of bringing it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting to present it as an offering to the LORD in front of the tabernacle of the LORD -that man shall be considered guilty of bloodshed; he has shed blood and must be cut off from his people.
Even, to assume for a moment that this type of blood sacrifice was for the forgiveness of sins (which it wasn't), if jesus was a blood sacrifice, he should have been offered up in front of the tabernacle and had his blood sprinkled over the altar and have some of his fat burned as an "aroma pleasing to the lord". Didn't happen. | |
|
| Atonement and Sacrifice
Posted: 11/14/2007 9:19:32 PM |
Even, to assume for a moment that this type of blood sacrifice was for the forgiveness of sins (which it wasn't), if jesus was a blood sacrifice, he should have been offered up in front of the tabernacle and had his blood sprinkled over it. Didn't happen.
Specifically wasn't done accordingly, because the new covenant that was being put into effect was not the same as the old covenant, And from my understanding was done 'outside the gate' to symbolically include those (gentiles) who were not a part of the first covenant. To make the offering in the temple would exclude the gentiles, and including the gentiles was what the purpose of Christ's atonement was to fulfill
Hebrews 9 is a good read and explains why Christ was not sacrificed in the temple
Hebrews 9
16In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep."[e] 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. | |
|
| Atonement and Sacrifice
Posted: 11/14/2007 11:05:36 PM | How do you interpret :-
(Lev 17:10 KJV) And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
(Lev 17:11 KJV) For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. | |
|
mak68
|
Joined: 10/9/2007
Msg: 11 | |
| Atonement and Sacrifice
Posted: 11/15/2007 5:04:44 AM |
How do you interpret :-
(Lev 17:10 KJV) And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
(Lev 17:11 KJV) For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
As in the context of the leviticus passages... animal blood, not human. Please point out where it states human blood is used, or even accepted as a sacrifice for atonement?? | |
|
| Atonement and Sacrifice
Posted: 11/15/2007 5:27:11 AM | Both Judaism and Christianity have the same means of atonement. If we review the Jewish sacrificial system, we see that blood sacrifices atone for sins of ignorance. There is no sacrifice for an intentional act. An intentional act within Judaism requires confession and repentance for atonement, and as a sign of that repentance an act of penance such as charity is usually offered.
Christianity is the same. When a person accepts the sacrifice of Christ all previous sins are forgiven, but the forgiveness comes from the repentance required of a confessing Christian for prior bad acts. Sins committed in ignorance afterwards are atoned for by the sacrifice of Christ. Intentional acts afterwards require confession and repentance, and as sign of that repentance an act of penance such as charity is usually offered. | |
|
| Atonement and Sacrifice
Posted: 11/15/2007 7:33:48 AM |
Please point out where it states human blood is used, or even accepted as a sacrifice for atonement?? Human blood was never used, and would have been considered an abomination of the worst kind! | |
|
| Atonement and Sacrifice
Posted: 11/15/2007 8:07:41 AM | OP, I think the operative phrase in Leviticus 17:11 is "to make atonement." That is the real issue. How does one atone for any sin--through a substitutionary sacrifice or through forfeiting his own life? Does the blood make the atonement or can money or repentance fully atone for sin? That is the question that divides Christians from Jews in my opinion. I believe that the Hebrew Scripture shows that atonement is only made with blood.
As far as Hebrews 9:22 goes and the phrase " And according to the Law almost all things are purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin" (NKJV), this is referring to the cleansing the High Priest makes for himself and his house on the Day of Atonement using the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat (Leviticus 16). Then he goes outside the Tabernacles and cleanses the altar with blood.
OP, I am honest in presenting what the Scripture says. The best example of someone caught in adultery is David. He was forgiven by repenting obviously as is stated in 2 Samuel 12:13. As a Christian, I believe that God's forgiveness of David is by the imputation of the sacrifice of Christ. I know that you will vehemently disagree with that, but so be it. I believe that the principle laid down in Leviticus 17:11 is the controlling principle in how God forgives mankind. Since there was no sacrifice ordained for adultery, Nathan was unable to command David to offer a sacrifice to receive God's forgiveness.
I believe that you have to consider the concept of imputation and recognize that when God says that He gives Israel the blood to make atonement for their sins, that is how sin is atoned for.
I believe in Covenant Theology, and I gather from your writings that you despise it. Nevertheless, we believe that God imputed the sacrifice of Christ to the Israelites as if it were already accomplished because the blood of animals does not truly atone for the sins of mankind. I believe that any forgiveness God grants is through Christ and His shed blood. I do not believe that the blood of Christ had to be sprinkled on the altar in the Temple of Jerusalem because He was not a bull or a goat. His offering was accepted in Heaven as is evidenced by His resurrection from the dead. I know you don't agree with this, but that is what I believe.
As far as your contention that Judaism absolutely prohibits one man bearing the sins of another man, you are overlooking Isaiah 53.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the INIQUITY of us all...
He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will delcare His generatiaon?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
for the TRANSGRESSIONS of My people He was stricken...
He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall JUSTIFY many,
For He shall BEAR their INIQUITIES.
Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He BORE THE SIN of many,
And MADE INTERCESSION for the transgressors" (Isaiah 53:6, 8, 11-12 NKJV).
Ezekiel 18 is not talking about substitutionary atonement. It is talking about a wicked proverb that was popular among the Jews prior to and during the Babylonian captivity: "The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge." God explains that a man is punished for his own sin. It is not talking about atonement--it is talking about the fact that these people were not being unjustly punished for what their fathers' did. They were being punished for what they did. God assures a righteous man that he will live, an unrighteous man that he will die, a wicked man who turns from his wickedness that he will live, a righteous man who turns to wickedness that he will die. They will reap what they sow. It is not talking about human sacrifice. | |
|
mak68
|
Joined: 10/9/2007
Msg: 15 | |
| Atonement and Sacrifice
Posted: 11/15/2007 9:31:50 AM | You have left out a rather contradictory passage in Isaiah 53:
Isaiah 53:10 :
10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes [a] his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
Jesus is NOT supposed to have offspring.
In fact, jewish scholars assert that the subject of the suffering servant is referring to the nation of israel, not one man.
from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_53
Isaiah 53, taken from the Book of Isaiah, is the last of the four Songs of the Suffering Servant, and tells the story of "The Suffering Servant". The passage is famous for its interpretation by many Christians to be prophesy of the coming of Jesus, being written over 700 years before his birth. This interpretation is strongly rejected by Jewish theologians, most of whom believe the servant to be the nation of Israel. | |
|
| Atonement and Sacrifice
Posted: 11/15/2007 10:01:55 AM |
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
for the TRANSGRESSIONS of My people He was stricken...
The people here must mean Israel - when was Israel "cut off " from the land of the living? I guess it could be argued that this speaks of the destruction of the temple and dispersion in 70 AD.
In my mind the "He" is not Israel the nation - and the construction of this sentence can't be speaking about the one (He) and at the same time the "people" - would be logically incorrect to mix the two. | |
|
| Atonement and Sacrifice
Posted: 11/15/2007 10:03:16 AM | -If we compare verses from the Old Testament as well as the New Testament, the question that comes to mind is why would God contradict himself by making himself the only saviour and then later on changes his own idea.
- This is what we get from the Old Testament.
“Each man should look to his conduct; if he has reason to boast of anything, it will be because the achievement is his and not another’s. ......... A man will REAP ONLY what he SOWS.” Galatians 6:4 - 7
"Each of us shall give an account of himself to God." Romans 14:12
"Each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor." 1Corinthians 3:8
"Also to you O Lord, belong mercy; for you render to each one according to his work." Psalms 62:12
"And will he not render to each man according to his deeds?" Proverbs 24:12
"The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." Ezekiel 18:20
- The above verses make it clear that it is your work and right deed that each human will be judged upon.
- If each man reaps what he sows, how can Jesus be the savior ? How could he have taken on the sins of mankind and negated them ? Only the One who accepts repentance and wipes out sins can do that. Throughout the Old Testament, God ALONE is referred to as the SAVIOR. See , 2 Samuel 22:1-3 , and Isaiah 43:3-11
In Isaiah, God Himself speaks, saying clearly that He ALONE is the SAVIOR:
“For I am the Lord, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your SAVIOR....It is I, the Lord; there is NO SAVIOR BUT ME...” Isaiah 43:3 &11
- And it is repeated categorical in Hosea:
“I am the Lord, your God, since the land of Egypt; You know no God besides me, and there is NO SAVIOR but me.” Hosea 13:4
- There is also a related concept, the idea of a “REDEEMER”. This word has also been exclusively used for God in the Old Testament, e.g. Isaiah 44:24 and Isaiah 60:16
“You shall know that I, the Lord am your SAVIOR, your REDEEMER, the mighty one of Jacob.” Isaiah 60:16
- Now it looks like the created idea of Jesus being the Savior can only be witnessed in the New Testament where the alteration has been highly suspected because of its complete contradiction to the Old Testament that came from the same God. God does not change His mind. God does not call Himself the ONLY SAVIOR then decides to change that and call Jesus the Savior. This I believe accounts for the contradictions that exist within the Bible text as being confessed to as well.
- If you read the revised version of 1971, the one I have at home. This is what is written in the preface and I quote.
"The king James version has with good reason been termed "the noblest monument of English prose." Its revisers in 1881 expressed admiration for its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its happhy turns of expressions... the music of its cadences................
Yet the King James version has grave defects. By the middle of ninteenth century, the developement of biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision............"
And here is another confession for you:
Mrs. Ellen G. White, a "prophetess" of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, in her Bible Commentary Vol. 1, page 14, has this confession to make about the fallibility of the "Holy Bible."
"THE BIBLE WE READ TODAY IS THE WORK OF MANY COPYISTS WHO HAVE IN MOST INSTANCES DONE THEIR WORK WITH MARVELLOUS ACCURACY. BUT COPYISTS HAVE NOT BEEN INFALLIBLE, AND GOD MOST EVIDENTLY HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO PRESERVE THEM ALTOGETHER FROM ERROR IN TRANSCRIBING."
- In the following pages of her commentary, Mrs. White testifies further:
"I SAW THAT GOD HAD ESPECIALLY GUARDED THE BIBLE". "YET WHEN COPIES OF IT WERE FEW, LEARNED MEN HAD IN SOME INSTANCES CHANGED THE WORDS, THINKING THAT THEY WERE MAKING IT PLAIN, WHEN IN REALITY THEY WERE MYSTIFYING THAT WHICH WAS PLAIN, BY CAUSING IT TO LEAN TO THEIR ESTABLISHED VIEWS, WHICH WERE GOVERNED BY TRADITION."
-However, this term (Saviour/Redeemer) describing Jesus as the Savior was used only twice in the New Testament. This is noted in Lk.ii 11 and in Jn. iv 42. Besides these two occurrences , the only other occurrence in the Gospels clearly refers to God, not Jesus :
“Then Mary said: “My being proclaims the greatness of the Lord. My spirit finds joy in God , MY SAVIOR, For He has looked upon his servant in her lowliness...” Luke 1: 46-48
- We cannot ignore the reminder in Isaiah 46:9 where God speaks of Himself
“I am God, there is no other;, I am God, there is none like me.”
| |
|
| |
| Atonement and Sacrifice
Posted: 11/15/2007 11:43:37 AM | Blaise: My purpose in quoting Isaiah 53 was not to identify the suffering servant. It was to show the OP that the Hebrew Scripture teaches the concept of one man bearing the sins of another man/men as a substitutionary atonement.
I hope I made my point clear. I did not state that Jesus was the fulfillment of Isaiah 53 because I know the Jews do not believe that. In another thread the OP had posted some articles about Ezekiel 18 to show that the concept of substitutionary atonement was foreign to Judaism. I am attempting to show that this is incorrect.
Edit: Bear, I don't understand what you are saying in message 7 about blood and remission. The scripture says God gave them the blood to make an atonement for sin. My understanding that atonement and remission are essentially the same thing. What do you say? | |
|
| Atonement and Sacrifice
Posted: 11/15/2007 2:03:47 PM | The real problem is one of interpretation - its been going on for centuries.
Example the Pharisees believed in the resurrection, the Sadducee's didn't ( thats why there were sad you see).
Really ya stakes ya pick and lives with that.
What I find disturbing in some of these debates is when a poster takes the position of you're wrong, I'm right - this authority or author backs me up, when even the authority has his/her detractors.. | |
|
| Atonement and Sacrifice
Posted: 11/15/2007 2:04:23 PM | This atonement and sacrifice is related to the Old Testament concept of Kismen-Redeemer.
In OT times, the phrase ´kinsmen-redeemer´ was always used of one who was related by blood to someone he was seking to redeem from bondage. If someone was sold into slavery, for example, it was the duty of a blood relative-next of kin-to act as that person´s kinsmen-redeemer and buy him out of slavery
Leviticus 25
47 " 'If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan, 48 he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself. One of his relatives may redeem him: 49 An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in his clan may redeem him. Or if he prospers, he may redeem himself.
Jesus is the Kinsmen-Redeemer for sin enslaved humanity. For Jesus to be as such He had to become related by blood to the human race. This indicates the necessity of the incarnation. Jesus became a man in order to redeem man.
Hebrews 2: 14-17
Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants. For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.
And because He was fully God, His sacrificial death had infinite values, as already shared from scripture in this thread. Hebrews 9:11-28. | |
|
| Atonement and Sacrifice
Posted: 11/15/2007 4:03:32 PM |
Example the Pharisees believed in the resurrection, the Sadducee's didn't ( thats why there were sad you see).
lol (cute) ...first time I've heard that ... what a great way to remember the difference. | |
|
| Atonement and Sacrifice
Posted: 11/15/2007 4:42:35 PM |
This is not to say that the two faiths cannot peacefully co-exist...
I agree...and I appreciate you posting this subject as after taking a look at the Tanakh and other writings I can understand your reasoning.
What I don't understand is why Judaism rejects the diety of Jesus and limits God, in that, God is not able to manifest himself in the flesh and be the sacrifice if he chooses to be, knowing there could be none greater.
Yet they would trust in Rabbi's who debate and change (here lets put this in - no lets take that out), and follow after a believed to be messiah who changed his religion 3 times (utimately Islam), and question the lineage to King David, and continue to emphasize on the love of God yet rejects Jesus because he didn't come killing and conquering everybody for their sake.
Having said that...its understandable why the atonement through Jesus is viewed as trivial. Please explain. Thank you. | |
|
| Atonement and Sacrifice
Posted: 11/15/2007 4:48:49 PM | Becky this makes no sense - can you re-write it??
and follow after a believed to be messiah who changed his religion 3 times (ultimately Islam) | |
|
| Atonement and Sacrifice
Posted: 11/15/2007 5:26:34 PM | What I don't understand is why Judaism rejects the diety of Jesus and limits God, in that, they limit God by saying He is not able to manifest himself in the flesh (Jesus) and be the sacrifice if he chooses to be, knowing there could be no greater sacrifice and it would be a done deal once and for all.
Yet those who practice Judaism would choose to trust in:
Rabbi's who debate and change (here lets put this in - no lets take that out).
Follow after a believed to be messiah who taught Kabbalah and later converted to
Islam....referring to Shabbetai Zvi.
Those who question the lineage to King David yet a full account is given.
Those who continue to emphasize on the love of God yet rejects Jesus because he
didn't come killing and conquering everybody for their sake.
Hope thats better. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
