|Atonement and SacrificePage 2 of 3 (1, 2, 3)|
|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.
|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 6:22:41 PM
|I'd just like to add my 2-penneth-worth here, OP. I was taught that repentance requires 4 things:|
1) Regret: Realisation of what you have done, and how much it has hurt others and yourself, and regretting your actions.
2) Turning away from your actions
Forgiveness can be granted through a Korban, or Sacrifice, although the real meaning of the word is "Bringing Close", meaning "Bringing you back, close to G-d". Not all sins can be forgiven by a Korban. If you brought the Korban, but not #1, #2, or #3, the Korban is irrelevant. In fact, in many cases, bringing a Korban incorrectly is itself a sin, so if you try to get away with just bringing the Korban, you are sinning.
There are many discussions of why a Korban is brought at all. But one thing is clear from the OT, what G-d really wants is for people to stop hurting others, and to be nice to each other, and to G-d. The Korban is for us to have a chance at forgiveness, not for G-d.
Also, there is a big difference between a sin that did not hurt people, and a sin that hurt people. If people are hurt as well, I was taught that G-d would not forgive the person who did the sin, unless he/she did the following FIRST:
1) The person repaid every person he/she hurt back, living or dead, and if dead, would have to repay the heirs
2) Have to ask for genuine forgiveness from every person he/she hurt, and received it.
If someone genuinely asked forgiveness and didn't get it, he/she would have to genuinely ask for forgiveness 2 more times, the last being in front of 10 people, so that the forgiveness could be the greatest it could be, being in public. It could be the first 2 times would have to be in front of 10 people too, but I don't remember if it was required.
If someone asked forgiveness 3 times in this way, and the other person refused to grant forgiveness, then he/she could be absolved from trying harder. But restitution would have to be made, and each time, the forgiveness would have to include a full account of the sins and how the other person was hurt. It is questionable if it is counted forgiveness if the sins were not mentioned.
Forgiveness in Judaism is NOT about the sacrifice of the animal. It is about genuinely regretting what you did, resolution to never do it again, making restitution, and genuinely asking for forgiveness, and doing all this to man and G-d. In the case of forgiveness, Man comes first. G-d doesn't forgive us, till his creations have forgiven us first.
What I was taught.