The Atonement Doctrine (Did Jesus Die For Our Sins?)

[rosends]

You said you were a Rabbi, doesn't that make you a man of God.The Jews owe their entire existence to the shedding of blood, the first passover.

You still haven't explained what "man of God" is supposed to mean. I am a rabbi. That means I have smicha. The fact that I am human makes me as much a man of God as most other people, unless you mean "man of God" in the sense of Ish Elokim which I explained in another post.

Jews owe their entire existence to God. To Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. To Moses. To the 10 plagues. To the miracle at the Red Sea. To the giving of the Torah. To the Mon. To the temples. To the pillar of fire. That you isolate blood is a bit weird.

 

[rosends]

Rabbi, Lev. 16 The day of atonement an annual event, was a day of mourning because of sin committed during the year. Apparently the people felt condemned, not forgiven. Only blood sacrifices were used to atone for sin, and bring the people forgiveness, making them right with God for another year. You asserted that sin could not be transferred to another person. This then begs the question, transferring sin to another person can't be done, but transferring it to a goat (scapegoat) can ?

You do realize that the "Day of Atonement" was only one part of the atonement system, right? That there were sacrifices, rites and practices for atonement every day and that not all of it had to do with sacrifice or blood. I mean, all that stuff you like to quote from Lev 5 is not about the Day of Atonement.

And the sin is not transferred to a goat. The service also required fiery coals and incense (Lev 16:12). Do you want to say that the atonement transfer was onto coal or incense. There was confession and leaning on animals. Maybe the transfer was into words! Then the sacrifice would be a sacrifice, only part of an atonement system. Crazy, right? And the scapegoat? Sent into the wilderness. Can you show me where there was any blood involved with that goat?

TIA.

 

[Ben Avraham]

All innocent and righteous blood atones for sin for a generation's sin. When there are no righteous people in a generation to die for that generation, school children die for that generation's sin. If the Temple was rebuilt in Jerusalem, then innocent lambs would die, which is better than human martyrs. This is all in the Talmud.

One big problem with Christianity is this notion of a human sacrifice. God made it clear to Abraham, that He doesn't want human sacrifice when Abe tried to kill his son.

Everyone would agree, that given a choice, it is better to offer animal sacrifices, than to rely on martyrs and untimely deaths of school children.

If this that one is to die for the sins of another is in the Talmud, the Talmud is contradicting the Prophets of the Most High that say "no one can die for the sins of another." (Ezekiel 18:4,20; Jeremiah 31:30; etc.) Regarding sacrifices, not only human sacrifices but also sacrifices at all, Prophet Jeremiah declares that the Lord never commanded that they be part of the religion of Israel. The doctrine was added by Moses as a ritual as a result of the Jewish concept of Pichuach Nephesh. (Jeremiah 7:22) Now, with regards to the death of martyrs and school children, it is obvious that animal sacrifices are preferable. The name is Pichuach Nephesh.

 

[Ben Avraham]

from the OP: Anyone who has read the Bible knows that Moses instituted laws of sacrifice as a penalty for sin.

Sorry I believe I don't know this and I have read the Bible many times. Do you have a reference?

I also read the Bible daily and I don't see that Moses instituted sacrifices as a penalty for sin but as an easier way to make the Exodus to happen. Besides, the rite of sacrifices was not added as a law but as a ritual.

 

[Ben Avraham]

I am a firm believer in the moral influence view of the atonement. This suggests that the purpose of Jesus life, was to bring a positive moral change to humanity through his example, life's work and teachings. and his death and resurrection.

This was the usual understanding in the early church and it has been taught through much of Christian history.
The substitutional, ransom, satisfaction and penal substitution, theories. as advanced by Anselm in the 11th century and by others later. Gave way again to the earlier "Moral Influence" theory expounded by Augustine. Which again since the 18th century has been the principal belief held by liberal Christians including the Anglicans.

Atonement literally means the state of being "At One With" or reconciled with, as in reconciled with God.

Yes, that's the definition of "Atonement" but we do not achieve reconciliation with God through sacrifices of animals but by setting thins right with HaShem so that our sins from scarlet red become as white as snow through repentance and return to the obedience of God's Law. (Isaiah 1:18,19) To spend a whole year committing sinful acts in the hope that on the Day of Atonement we will be forgiven is primitive and pagan to say the least. It makes no sense.

 

[Ben Avraham]

This is an interesting thread, and take on Jesus' death and resurrection. Jesus said however 'I'm the way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except by me.' (John 14:6) So we can assume that this means that in order for God to be 'willing' to forgive us of our sins, we should follow His Son. So, from a Christian perspective, you are partially right in that repentance comes from within us...the will to ask for forgiveness, the will to turn from wrong doing, etc. But, that is only possible at all because Christ paved the way. Otherwise, there would have been no reason for Christ to have paved the way. (my opinion)

I can account for Jesus' death because he was born and, all one needs to die is to have been born. Now, as resurrection is concerned, if you look at Jesus as a Jew, it didn't happened because according to his gospel which was the Tanach,
once dead, no one will ever return from the grave. Read II Samuel 12:23; Isaiah 26:14; Job 7:9; Psalm 49:12,20; etc.

 

[Deidre]

I can account for Jesus' death because he was born and, all one needs to die is to have been born. Now, as resurrection is concerned, if you look at Jesus as a Jew, it didn't happened because according to his gospel which was the Tanach,
once dead, no one will ever return from the grave. Read II Samuel 12:23; Isaiah 26:14; Job 7:9; Psalm 49:12,20; etc.

We come at this from different views, because we're of different faiths. What do you feel about the New Testament?

 

[rosends]

If this that one is to die for the sins of another is in the Talmud, the Talmud is contradicting the Prophets of the Most High that say "no one can die for the sins of another." (Ezekiel 18:4,20; Jeremiah 31:30; etc.) Regarding sacrifices, not only human sacrifices but also sacrifices at all, Prophet Jeremiah declares that the Lord never commanded that they be part of the religion of Israel. The doctrine was added by Moses as a ritual as a result of the Jewish concept of Pichuach Nephesh. (Jeremiah 7:22) Now, with regards to the death of martyrs and school children, it is obvious that animal sacrifices are preferable. The name is Pichuach Nephesh.

Pikuach nefesh has nothing to do with school children. If you are interested in understanding the actual statements regarding human death and atonement, I can point you to a brief review I wrote
https://rosends.blogspot.com/b/post...K6SoamZg&postId=2613385523038956402&type=POST

Let me know if that works (it is a preview which might not be accessible)

 

[Ben Avraham]

We come at this from different views, because we're of different faiths. What do you feel about the New Testament?

But... Deidre, if you acknowledge that our divergence is due to the fact that we come from different faiths, who gives you the right to use a member of my Faith to enhance a doctrine of yours? That's something akin to Replacement Theology aka
vandalism of a religion by another. Now, regarding your question about what I feel about the NT, no offense mean but, what I feel is that the NT is like the Magna Carta of Replacement Theology. Jesus never had any thing to do with the NT. He never
even dreamed the NT would ever be written.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Pikuach nefesh has nothing to do with school children. If you are interested in understanding the actual statements regarding human death and atonement, I can point you to a brief review I wrote
https://rosends.blogspot.com/b/post...K6SoamZg&postId=2613385523038956402&type=POST

Let me know if that works (it is a preview which might not be accessible)

All right! If one sees another on the way to kill a third one, be it a school child or not, the first is allowed to kill the potential killer first. Also, if we kill someone who is on the way to kill us, we incur in no sin. Why? Because it is Pichuach Nephesh.
Pichuach Nephesh is a Jewish concept which allows us to break a commandment in order to keep another which by doing so, we are saving a life. Another interesting example is that if we hear the noise of donkey that fell on a hole on the Sabbath,
we are expected to expend as many hours as possible to save the life of that donkey, no matter on a Sabbath day. That's called Pichuach Nephesh. If with a donkey we are allowed to use of Pichuah Nephesh, much more important with a human being.

 

[rosends]

All right! If one sees another on the way to kill a third one, be it a school child or not, the first is allowed to kill the potential killer first. Also, if we kill someone who is on the way to kill us, we incur in no sin. Why? Because it is Pichuach Nephesh.
Pichuach Nephesh is a Jewish concept which allows us to break a commandment in order to keep another which by doing so, we are saving a life. Another interesting example is that if we hear the noise of donkey that fell on a hole on the Sabbath,
we are expected to expend as many hours as possible to save the life of that donkey, no matter on a Sabbath day. That's called Pichuach Nephesh. If with a donkey we are allowed to use of Pichuah Nephesh, much more important with a human being.

Pikuach nefesh has to do with the need to break a law to remove an imminent threat to life (with a few exceptions). Killing a rodef is not the same thing. Can you show me a Jewish citation that applies pikuach nefesh to an animal? You might be thinking of taz'ar ba'alei chayim.
http://www.shamayimvaretz.org/uploads/3/2/2/9/32294559/tzaar_baalei_hayim_and_shabbat_asher_levy.pdf

 

[Deidre]

But... Deidre, if you acknowledge that our divergence is due to the fact that we come from different faiths, who gives you the right to use a member of my Faith to enhance a doctrine of yours? That's something akin to Replacement Theology aka
vandalism of a religion by another. Now, regarding your question about what I feel about the NT, no offense mean but, what I feel is that the NT is like the Magna Carta of Replacement Theology. Jesus never had any thing to do with the NT. He never
even dreamed the NT would ever be written.

What are you talking about ''use'' a member?

 

[Ben Avraham]

I read somewhere....
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
spoken to the faces of the Pharisees

and they sought to kill Him from that hour on

That's the Golden Rule. "Not to do unto others what we would not like they did unto ourselves." The Golden Rule covers the whole second part of the Decalogue. Now, if we are to believe that text in Matthew 23:13-33, Jesus broke the Golden Rule 15 times only in that text when he charged the Pharisees with being hypocrites and brood of vipers. I don't believe Jesus did that but hey, it is down in the NT. If you don't believe it, you are at fault with your own Bible. On the other hand, if you believe it, you have acknowledged that Jesus was a sinner just like any one of us. The Pharisees never sought to kill Jesus. The opposite is rather true that they tried to rescue Jesus from being arrested twice. First, from Herod when he had send his cohorts to arrest Jesus and the Pharisees revealed the secret unto Jesus and he escaped by leaving the region. The second time was when the disciples of Jesus were acclaiming him king of the Jews in Jerusalem, a Roman province at the time, and the Pharisees asked Jesus to stop them or Jesus would be arrested and Jesus' reply was that if they stopped, the stones would shout. Obviously, Jesus was enjoying the parade. (Luke 19:37-40) The end result was that soon afterward, Jesus was
arrested and condemned to the cross with his verdict INRI nailed on the top by order of Pilate.

 

[Ben Avraham]

What are you talking about ''use'' a member?

Jesus was a member of the Jewish Faith aka Judaism and Christians are using a Jew to build Christianity. Am I right or wrong? If I am wrong, remember to prove to me that Jesus was a Christian. Thank you.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Pikuach nefesh has to do with the need to break a law to remove an imminent threat to life (with a few exceptions). Killing a rodef is not the same thing. Can you show me a Jewish citation that applies pikuach nefesh to an animal? You might be thinking of taz'ar ba'alei chayim.
http://www.shamayimvaretz.org/uploads/3/2/2/9/32294559/tzaar_baalei_hayim_and_shabbat_asher_levy.pdf

Thank you for the good definition for what I mean.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Please tell me about proving the existence of God by logic and physics. I have tried to do it by the laws of probability, physics, I can only get to the singularity before the big bang, logic won't sway the mind of most non believers, I have tried many times

Let's start with the universe. Could the universe have caused itself to exist? No, because to do so, it had to exist. Since it already existed, it would have no need to still cause itself to exist. It is only logical that someone or something caused the universe to exist. Who could it have been if not the Creator of the universe? Answer please to this question before we proceed into the next step. I see that you make reference to singularity and big bang. Big bang of what, matter? Who or what caused the matter that caused the big bang to blow? As you see, we are back to the Creator whether you wish to avoid Him or not.

 

[Deidre]

Jesus was a member of the Jewish Faith aka Judaism and Christians are using a Jew to build Christianity. Am I right or wrong? If I am wrong, remember to prove to me that Jesus was a Christian. Thank you.

Oh, I see what you’re saying. I happen to agree with you. Even though for simplicity’s sake, I identify as a Christian, I don’t ‘’like’’ the label. I just follow Jesus, but that is considered Christianity by most standards. Do you believe Jesus existed? Just wondering.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Yes, that's the definition of "Atonement" but we do not achieve reconciliation with God through sacrifices of animals but by setting thins right with HaShem so that our sins from scarlet red become as white as snow through repentance and return to the obedience of God's Law. (Isaiah 1:18,19) To spend a whole year committing sinful acts in the hope that on the Day of Atonement we will be forgiven is primitive and pagan to say the least. It makes no sense.

Christians do not have a direct covernant with God, nor an equivalent to the Jewish law. Though we do hold to the ten commandments.
Our sins are our own, but can be forgiven when we truly repent through the Grace of God.

I do not believe that Jesus Death and resurrection changed that at all, and that that has always been so for everyone.

Jesus placed no limit on the forgiveness of God, or on his love.
Though it is clear that we must play our part and love others as our selves.

I would have perhaps been easier if Christians did have a Law...as it stands, the situation is open ended, with an unlimited possible potential sins and sins of omission.

 

[atpollard]

Jesus was a member of the Jewish Faith aka Judaism and Christians are using a Jew to build Christianity. Am I right or wrong? If I am wrong, remember to prove to me that Jesus was a Christian. Thank you.

Jews don't believe in the resurrection of the dead (or so I've been told on this website) and Jesus and Christians do.
[I'm just making a joke ... wait til you meet him and ask him yourself.] [shrug]

 

[Ben Avraham]

10.. if ten were hard so hard that even before moses gets down they already broke the 1st command .. And I think they broke all 9 by the time they got the promise land.. 613 must be like steroids

Well, I don't find hard to obey the Decalogue. Not as Paul did that the only way out was to teach freedom from the Law with the death of Jesus. (Romans 7:1-7)