Blood is not necessary for atonement

[sojourner]

How do you win against a 300 lb gorilla? fight a dead gorilla. Starve the sin nature.

Bound? no

"If by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the flesh you will live" says Romans 8

There is a God glorifying God ordained struggle till death between the old and new natures where believers are dependent on God to fight.

And then in glory free completely.

That’s a big “if.”

 

[whirlingmerc]

That’s a big “if.”

Jesus said 'he who endures to the end shall live'

I think God is not passive in the situation and will take his child to the woodshed for discipline to set him back on a straight course. No such discipline happening? then the book of Hebrews says check if you are really God's child.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Re: #1. Not accurate. I personally know of others who believe and teach TD, as even Total depravity - Wikipedia points out:

• “Total depravity (also called radical corruption or pervasive depravity) is a Christian theological doctrine derived from the concept of original sin. It is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin as a result of their fallen nature and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God, refrain from evil, or accept the gift of salvation as it is offered.”
• "It is advocated to various degrees by many Protestant confessions of faith and catechisms, including those of some Lutheran synods, and Calvinism. Arminians, such as Methodists, believe and teach total depravity, but with distinct differences. The key distinction between the total depravity embraced by Calvin and the total depravity taught by Arminius is the distinction between irresistible grace and prevenient grace.”
• "The Roman Catholic Church maintains that man cannot, "be justified before God by his own works, ... without the grace of God through Jesus Christ", thereby rejecting Pelagianism in accordance with the writings of Augustine and the Second Council of Orange However, even strictly Augustinian Catholics disagree with the Protestant doctrine of total depravity. Referring to Scripture and the Church Fathers, Catholicism views human free will as deriving from God's image because humans are created in God's image. Accordingly, the Council of Trent, at its sixth session (January 1547), condemned as heresy any doctrine asserting "since Adam's sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished".
• "The Orthodox Church embraces the "semi-Augustinian" position of John Cassian and also defends Augustine of Hippo relating to this doctrine. Seraphim Rose, for example, contends that Augustine never denied the free will of every human, thus he never taught total depravity. Archbishop Chrysostomos has likewise asserted that Augustine's teaching might have been used and distorted in Western Christianity to produce innovative theologizing, and it is not Augustine's fault.”

Re: #2. As noted above, many Christians accept some form of the notion of Total Depravity. Calvin was one. I am another. I am no more a Calvinist than Calvin is a Sampsonite. Some Christians subscribe to some form of Total Depravity but not to Free Will; others subscribe to some form of Total Depravity and Free Will with limitations; yet others affirm Total Depravity and unlimited Free Will. And I suspect, but do know for certain, there are some who call themselves Christian and do not subscribe to any depravity but do believe in unlimited Free Will, who move me to wonder why they call themselves Christian because they do not need or believe in his function as a Savior. [What's the use of a savior when no one needs to be saved.] Bottom Line: I may look like and quack like a Calvinist, but I’m not a Calvinist.

Terry, if you would be so kind as to make your posts more succinct, it would be helpful. I take one look at essays (especially those that are 2/3 nothing but quotes from other sites) and feel very disinclined to respond. Thanks in advance.

At this point, I'm simply going to articulate the obvious: Calvin taught Total Depravity, and Arminius taught against it. More than that, deeper than that, I just don't have a dog in the race since I'm a Jew. You'll have to argue your case among your fellow Christians.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

How do you know it is figurative? You assume it is because it fits your narrative.

I know it is figurative because God doesn't have a nose.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes God required blood sacrifice of various animals
No, they were not sufficient in themselves
Hence the need for an ultimate sacrifice which also brings a transformation and a new heart with a repentance that leads to life

"Create in me a new heart" Ps 51
In Messiah "God will throw our sins into the depths of the sea"

Sorry, but the Tanakh never indicates a need for some sort of ultimate sacrifice.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus said 'he who endures to the end shall live'

I think God is not passive in the situation and will take his child to the woodshed for discipline to set him back on a straight course. No such discipline happening? then the book of Hebrews says check if you are really God's child.

This doesn’t really address my post.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I don’t think it is good, if people continue to sacrifice, because people should be righteous and free from sin, so that they would not need any sacrifices.

That's not the point.
1. Most of the sacrifices had nothing to do with sin.
2. People will still stumble, and then will will atone with sacrifices.
3. It is a commandment to build a sanctuary. Judaism is not complete without it.

 

[Link]

Sorry, but the Tanakh never indicates a need for some sort of ultimate sacrifice.

Moses, Aaron, Samuel, Saul, David, Solomon, etc, they were chosen before coming to this world. God sacrifices them and put's them in a world of limits and far from him and where they have to direct their attention to ignorant people like the Pharaoh and a people who can't distinguish real miracles from a damn golden calf barely moving due to magic and Jinn and believe it to be God on conjecture of a sorcerer, they suffer greatly. They have intense knowledge from God but find people to ignorant, and hence the knot on Moses' tongue was due to the ignorance of weak minds and propaganda of deceivers.

Jesus suffered by blood, so did his predecessors, and so did Solomon and the twelve Lions kings with him indicated by the statues, which were his predecessors to his successors. They suffer greatly, and if it's not their blood spilled to redeem humans, it's their suffering as they see a dark world full of oppression.

Solomon was tried with a body and at this point, asked God to give him a kingdom that doesn't befit any successor he has in the children of Israel. Did that make people submit to God and his guidance. No, they saw magic in his actions and Iblis took advantage and attributed a book of sorcery regarding him. Then sorcery became prevalent and people rather then relying on God relied on sorcerers for enlightenment till it was common so much so that God had to take measures to teach magic and the cure for it, and to teach the cure, had to teach the poison.

You think Solomon didn't suffer. God shows miracles and gives control to Solomon over every Jinn, and instead, Jinn say it's his ring or some sort of magic power he has, and humans rebel further.

If it's not their own body blood, well they love humans to the extent, an innocent killed, is as if they are killed. Their followers sins as if their sins is how they pray to God.

They suffer greatly, and it's only through loving them and not equating their guidance and leadership with that of clergy and self-appointed representatives can we redeem ourselves.

Moses goes 40 days, then comes back regretting it! This how much they suffer, they have no time with God because we fill the world with lies and conjecture!

 

[Terry Sampson]

if you would be so kind as to make your posts more succinct, it would be helpful.

Not a problem. But the moment you complain about my failure to cite sources, I'll do us both a favor and put you on my "Ignore list", which isn't out of the realm of possibility yet.
You want succinct?

• Many Christians accept some form of the notion of Total Depravity. I still have difficulty understanding how anyone can claim to be a Christian and not believe or not have believed in it.
  
• Calvin was one. I am another. I am no more a Calvinist than Calvin is a Sampsonite.
• Neither Calvin nor I were the first to accept the Doctrine of Original Sin.
• Augustine was not the first to accept or teach the Doctrine of Original Sin.
• Paul of Tarsus was not the first to speak of the total depravity of mankind, i.e. Original Sin before it formally got that name.
• Where did the doctrine come from?
  • Tumah affirmed my suspicion that the makings of the Christian Doctrine of Original Sin came from very Jewish sources.

    • I don't think there's any question that the Christian doctrine of Original Sin originates in Jewish sources.

    • If my writing that hurts your eyes, take it up with Tumah or remain pained and clueless.

I just don't have a dog in the race since I'm a Jew

Right. Which is why you got no say in the matter of "Total Depravity", "Original Sin", and what Christians believe or do not believe about either.

 

[sojourner]

Many Christians accept some form of the notion of Total Depravity. I still have difficulty understanding how anyone can claim to be a Christian and not believe or not have believed in it

Ever hear of Pelagius? Teilhard de Chardin? I’m Christian — a member of the clergy, in fact. I completely reject original sin and Total Depravity. On the flip side of that coin, I have trouble with the fact that anyone can embrace Xy and still feel so separate from God and creation that they believe the notion of “Total Depravity.” I’m not a Jew, but I’ve studied that tradition, and I just don’t find original Sin therein. Perhaps I’m missing something, but my brother-in-law is Jewish and he would say that it’s not a Jewish concept.

 

[Terry Sampson]

How about this: If, when the Angel of Death passes your house tonight, there is no lamb's blood on the three lintels of your front door, somebody in your family is going to die.

[My error: Should be "on the two door posts and the lintel"]​

The Pesach is not a sin offering.

Distractions have delayed my response.
For the record, I know the Pesach is not a sin offering,
IMO, there would have been no Pesach without lamb's blood on the doorposts and lintels of the doors of those who attended the very first Pesach.

• From "The Jewish Study Bible", Exodus 12:
  • 1. The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt:
  • 2. This month shall mark for you the beginning of the months; it shall be the first of the months of the year for you.
  • 3. Speak to the whole community of Israel and say that on the tenth of this month each of them shall take a lamb to a family, a lamb to a household.
  • 4. But if the household is too small for a lamb, let him share one with a neighbor who dwells nearby, in proportion to the number of persons: you shall contribute for the lamb according to
    what each household will eat.
  • 5. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a yearling male; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats.
  • 6. You shall keep watch over it until the fourteenth day of this month; and all the assembled congregation of the Israelites shall slaughter it at twilight.
  • 7. They shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they are to eat it.
  • 8. They shall eat the flesh that same night; they shall eat it roasted over the fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs.
  • 9. Do not eat any of it raw, or cooked in any way with water, but roasted-head, legs, and entrails-over the fire.
  • 10. You shall not leave any of it over until morning; if any of it is left until morning, you shall burn it.
  • 11. This is how you shall eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it hurriedly: it is a passover offering to the LORD.
  • 12. For that night I will go through the land of Egypt and strike down every first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and I will mete out punishments to all the
    gods of Egypt, I the LORD.
  • 13. And the blood on the houses where you are staying shall be a sign for you: when l see the blood I will pass over you, so that no plague will destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.
  • 14. This day shall be to you one of remembrance: you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD throughout the ages; you shall celebrate it as an institution for all time.

• Jesus is my "Passover Lamb".

• Mark 14:22-24 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
  22 While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.” 23 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many."
• Matthew 26:26-28 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
  26 While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins."
• Luke 22:19-20 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
  19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."
• 1 Corinthians 11 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
  23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

 

[Terry Sampson]

1. Ever hear of Pelagius? Teilhard de Chardin? I’m Christian — a member of the clergy,
2. in fact. I completely reject original sin and Total Depravity.
3. On the flip side of that coin, I have trouble with the fact that anyone can embrace Xy and still feel so separate from God and creation that they believe the notion of “Total Depravity.”
4. I’m not a Jew, but I’ve studied that tradition, and I just don’t find original Sin therein.
   
5. Perhaps I’m missing something, but my brother-in-law is Jewish and he would say that it’s not a Jewish concept.

• Re: #5.
  • My sympathies, not because your brother-in-law is Jewish, but because you have a brother-in-law. I've had thirteen of them and, contrary to my initial great hopes for each, all but three were royal pains in my butt and the bane of my existence. If yours isn't, give thanks to God daily.
  • I'm saying this as respectfully as I can: You are indeed missing something, and unless your brother is steeped deep in all Jewish literature, I would hesitate to assume that he's going to be aware of the Jewish source for the Doctrine of Original Sin.
    • IMO, a person of any age would have to be insane to start out from the get-go believing: "'I'm a piece of crap, have been since the moment I was conceived, and will be till the day I die, and there's nothing I can do about it because even my purported "Free Will" is corrupt and useless in getting me out of the hole I am in."
      • On the contrary, in fact, the "natural" inclination of all but the deranged and broken is to protest early and long against even the slightest suggestion of defect or deficiency. And yet, .. the Doctrine continues to be taught.
• Re: #1. I have heard of both Pelagius and de Chardin.
  • Question: Are you saying that de Chardin was a member of the clergy or that you are? I know that de Chardin was a Catholic priest, ... a Jesuit, if I remember.
    • From Wikipedia: "In 1962, the Holy Office condemned several of Teilhard's works based on their alleged ambiguities and doctrinal errors. Some eminent Catholic figures, including Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope Francis, made positive comments on some of his ideas. The response to his writings by scientists has been mostly critical."
• Re: #2. Duly noted. Would it be safe to say that you don't believe that Jesus "saved" you from anything?
• Re: #3. Well, one thing you have going for you is that you're consistent.
• Re: #4. I'd try to connect the dots for you, ... with no guarantee of success, if I knew that you were truly interested. But if you're neither interested nor open to considering something that I suspect would be "new" to you, I won't bother to bore you.

 

[sojourner]

• Re: #5.
  • My sympathies, not because your brother-in-law is Jewish, but because you have a brother-in-law. I've had thirteen of them and, contrary to my initial great hopes for each, all but three were royal pains in my butt and the bane of my existence. If yours isn't, give thanks to God daily.
  • I'm saying this as respectfully as I can: You are indeed missing something, and unless your brother is steeped deep in all Jewish literature, I would hesitate to assume that he's going to be aware of the Jewish source for the Doctrine of Original Sin.
    • IMO, a person of any age would have to be insane to start out from the get-go believing: "'I'm a piece of crap, have been since the moment I was conceived, and will be till the day I die, and there's nothing I can do about it because even my purported "Free Will" is corrupt and useless in getting me out of the hole I am in."
      • On the contrary, in fact, the "natural" inclination of all but the deranged and broken is to protest early and long against even the slightest suggestion of defect or deficiency. And yet, .. the Doctrine continues to be taught.
• Re: #1. I have heard of both Pelagius and de Chardin.
  • Question: Are you saying that de Chardin was a member of the clergy or that you are? I know that de Chardin was a Catholic priest, ... a Jesuit, if I remember.
    • From Wikipedia: "In 1962, the Holy Office condemned several of Teilhard's works based on their alleged ambiguities and doctrinal errors. Some eminent Catholic figures, including Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope Francis, made positive comments on some of his ideas. The response to his writings by scientists has been mostly critical."
• Re: #2. Duly noted. Would it be safe to say that you don't believe that Jesus "saved" you from anything?
• Re: #3. Well, one thing you have going for you is that you're consistent.
• Re: #4. I'd try to connect the dots for you, ... with no guarantee of success, if I knew that you were truly interested. But if you're neither interested nor open to considering something that I suspect would be "new" to you, I won't bother to bore you.

Yes, I’m a member of the clergy. My belief with regard to salvation is complicated. The short answer is, no. I don’t think I need to be “saved” in the way the fundigelicals mean. I think salvation is something wholly different from what we normally think. This is probably not the right venue for such a dot-connecting. I’m not particularly interested, because it doesn’t serve me and I’d rather spend my time and energy on what serves me.

Thanks for your honest reply.

 

[Harel13]

You are indeed missing something, and unless your brother is steeped deep in all Jewish literature, I would hesitate to assume that he's going to be aware of the Jewish source for the Doctrine of Original Sin.

Hey Terry, I think there may be a disagreement amongst Jews and between Jews and Christians on what the concept of Original Sin is. Not too long ago I asked someone I learn with what he thought, and he said that there's definitely some concept of OS, but the major difference between Jews and Christians is the extent of the ramifications. For Jews it could be anywhere from losing humanity's immortality (individual humans die at some point) to yeah, even a lower spiritual level in all of mankind - but the reaction to all of this is simply: "Okay. So? We've got our mission in life. This is not the end of the world. Let's keep moving." While, to many Jews, it seems that the Christian reaction is despair and without Jesus there's no hope, etc.

In other words, there was definitely a first, "original" sin by Adam and Eve, but Jews simply don't think about it all that much, while to us, it seems that Christians think about it too much, from which may stem why most Jews deny OS. We've got OS but it's not Christianity's OS.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hey Terry, I think there may be a disagreement amongst Jews and between Jews and Christians on what the concept of Original Sin is. Not too long ago I asked someone I learn with what he thought, and he said that there's definitely some concept of OS, but the major difference between Jews and Christians is the extent of the ramifications. For Jews it could be anywhere from losing humanity's immortality (individual humans die at some point) to yeah, even a lower spiritual level in all of mankind - but the reaction to all of this is simply: "Okay. So? We've got our mission in life. This is not the end of the world. Let's keep moving." While, to many Jews, it seems that the Christian reaction is despair and without Jesus there's no hope, etc.

In other words, there was definitely a first, "original" sin by Adam and Eve, but Jews simply don't think about it all that much, while to us, it seems that Christians think about it too much, from which may stem why most Jews deny OS. We've got OS but it's not Christianity's OS.

I just want to make it clear to the room. In the Christian concept of original sin, even if you do not personally commit a sin, for example a newborn baby, you are personally GUILTY of sin, because you inherit Adam's guilt, and are therefore deserving of hell. I repeat, even though you have not personally committed a sin, such as a newborn, you are deserving of hell, because you inherit Adam's guilt. Such a concept does not exist in Judaism.

 

[1213]

That's not the point.
1. Most of the sacrifices had nothing to do with sin.

But, if God doesn’t require them, why do it?

2. People will still stumble, and then will will atone with sacrifices.

In Bible forgiveness is possible without sacrifice. And I think it is interesting if you think it is correct path to sacrifice. People should and could become righteous so that they would not have sin.

But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God's children, to those who believe in his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13

… Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

3. It is a commandment to build a sanctuary. Judaism is not complete without it.

Please show the scripture, from where does that commandment come?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But, if God doesn’t require them, why do it?

These other sacrifices *are* required. Some are daily. I suggest you begin with the book of Exodus and Leviticus and familiarize yourself with the Law. I know that Christians generally don't do think because they imagine it has been done away with, even for Jews. But remember that the Tanakh is the groundwork for your faith. That's why it is still in your Bible.

In Bible forgiveness is possible without sacrifice. And I think it is interesting if you think it is correct path to sacrifice. People should and could become righteous so that they would not have sin.

But giving sacrifice is what is commanded--the ideal. It is for our benefit. Judaism can function without the temple and sacrifices, but it is incomplete.

Please show the scripture, from where does that commandment come?

And let them build Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them. Exodus 25:8

 

[Redemptionsong]

I just want to make it clear to the room. In the Christian concept of original sin, even if you do not personally commit a sin, for example a newborn baby, you are personally GUILTY of sin, because you inherit Adam's guilt, and are therefore deserving of hell. I repeat, even though you have not personally committed a sin, such as a newborn, you are deserving of hell, because you inherit Adam's guilt. Such a concept does not exist in Judaism.

I think your response to 3rdAngel was pretty harsh, especially given the relevant, scripture based, response that he supplied!

Firstly, I'd like to look at the scriptures that you say illustrate Paul's ignorance of Jewish ritual.

KJV Numbers 16:4. 'And Aaron took as Moses commanded, and ran into the midst of the congregation; and behold, the plague was begun among the people: and he put on incense, and made an atonement for the people.'

JPS 1985. Numbers 17:12 'Aaron took it, as Moses had ordered, and ran to the midst of the congregation, where the plague had begun among the people. He put on the incense and made expiation for the people.'

You say that these passages prove that blood is not used to expiate for sin. But this is not what the passages say. In the KJV 'he [Aaron] put on incense, [comma denotes separation] and made an atonement for the people.'

In the JPS version, the distinction is not so evident but there could still be a separation between the putting on of incense and the making of an expiation. This version is ambiguous.

So let's see if further light can be shed on the subject by reference to Leviticus chapter 4. Here we have the ritual explained in more detail, and it tells us that the 'priest that is anointed' [in this case Aaron] shall make expiation for the sins of the congregation of Israel. The manner of expiation is explained in the side notes of the Jewish Study Bible 1985. It reads, 'The sacrifices in these two chapters [ Lev. 4 and 5] do not reflect the individual's voluntary resolve to serve God, but are occasioned by specific violations or wrongdoing. The Rabbis therefore called these sacrifices 'hova': debts, penalties incurred. Such sacrificial rituals are said to 'atone' (Heb. 'kiper'), traditionally understood as amends for wrongdoing. Atonement in this view, is a sort of payment made to propitiate an angry deity and be reconciled with him. However Heb. 'kiper' actually means 'wipe clean', and the atoning act consists of the application of the blood of the animal to the sanctuary as a whole and to the objects within it.'

What this is saying is that atonement is really Temple purification, and that blood is involved in atonement or expiation.

From the lips of fellow Jews!

The other point worth making is that Saul of Tarsus (later, Paul) was an ardent Jew and suppressor of the Christian 'sect'. He lived at a time when sacrifices were still being made in the Temple. Do you not think that he would have understood the rituals better than you or I?

As the convert to Jesus Christ, Paul wrote his letter to the Hebrews knowing that they too would have had intimate knowledge of the Jewish rituals of sacrifice. Do you really think he would have made such a basic error?!

 

[1213]

These other sacrifices *are* required. …

By what I see, they are not required. There is just rules how to do it, if people want to do it.

But giving sacrifice is what is commanded--the ideal. It is for our benefit. …

How it is for our benefit? (I am not against it, I just think it is not demanded).

And let them build Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them. Exodus 25:8

I think “let them” is not commandment. I think God allowed it, but didn’t demand it, especially because:

The God who made the world and all things in it, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, doesn't dwell in temples made with hands, neither is he served by men's hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself gives to all life and breath, and all things.
Acts 17:24-25

 

[Milton Platt]

I know it is figurative because God doesn't have a nose.

You should share the photo with the rest of us. When did you see him?