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

[meghanwaterlillies]

Why cant Moses Enter the promise land?

In revelation the Keys of Life and death are not given to moses. They are given to the Alpha and Omega, as He states Jesus is and holds them. I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

 

[atpollard]

What?

See below ...

Who told to you that Jesus believed in bodily resurrection? He would not contradict his own gospel aka the Tanach.

I suspect he would be one of your fellow "Decendants of Jacob" who doesn't believe from his reaction to the same joke.
I have no idea what Judaism teaches and nothing to gain by lying about what I have been told.
I have read (in my Bible) that it was also a matter of contention in The Sanhedron, so I suspect Rabbinical teachings exist on both sides. However, I am busy enough with the nuances of my Scripture without worrying about the nuances of yours.

 

[Thief]

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.

open critique of the 'establishment'.....is always a dangerous thing to do
but apparently reform was sought

Jesus as a sinner?.....
well if that Fellow didn't make it to heaven....with all of His ability....

the rest of us are screwed

btw....the Golden Rule was not authored by the Carpenter
it was written in stone at least a thousand years before the Carpenter walked
heathen law

and the Carpenter would quote that old law first
as if the law of Moses was second in mind and heart

so the Pharisees came asking....and did not like the response
'and sought to have Him dead from that hour on....'
so says the book I have

 

[shmogie]

Ah, here's the problem. If you say that sin was transferred then you have a problem. The goat in the wilderness isn't killed so no blood. The blood that was spilled was NOT from an animal that had the sins on it. If this "transference" was really real and necessary, no other sacrifice for atonement could ever be effective since it is never done in other situations. If it isn't necessary, so the textual statements of other atonement sacrifices being effective are accurate then transference isn't necessary.

If blood was necessary then flour couldn't work.
If blood was necessary then intentional sins could never be atoned for.

Then what was the the scapegoat for ? why was it even called a scapegoat ? There was no reason for it to even exist ! For abjectly poor people who couldn't afford a blood offering in the daily sacrifice, they could use flour. However, it was never used on the day of atonement. The blood was sprinkled in the Holy of Holy' once a year. Lev. 16 addresses sin, it says ALL sin. It doesn't make a distinction between intentional or non intentional sin. Lev. 16; 20 "Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness" ???

 

[shmogie]

Jesus established no new covenant of any sort. The New Covenant aka the New Jewish World Order according to Jeremiah 31:31 was established soon after the return of the Jews from Babylon.
So, you say that "rather then the Law, we have the teachings of Jesus." Are you sure! Take a look at Luke 16:29-31. Jesus rather taught to listen to "Moses" aka the Law. That was the teaching of Jesus.
Do Christians live according to "Moses" aka the Law? If not, they don't have Jesus but Paul who was rather released from the Law as he claimed. (Romans 7:1-7)

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[shmogie]

Now you are just being dishonest, so I again am going to call your out on this. I never denied that Luther was a great man, and as a matter of fact I grew up attending a fundamentalist Lutheran church and had actually had serious thoughts of going into the ministry.

Secondly, I never declared myself as being an "authority"-- just that I have done substantial studying and teaching in this area as many others here have.

Thirdly, you have never established through any evidence whatsoever that my supposed "dumb" statements are indeed dumb. It is so utterly arrogant of you to tell Jews, including a rabbi, how Judaism is to be rendered. You can't even get parts of your own faith correct and yet you'll tell others how they supposedly must render theirs?

And finally, you're lying in the name of Jesus and God tells me a great deal about your brand of "Christianity". Since you have nothing to offer here academically or theologically, ...

fini

Saying that Luther was mentally disturbed, implying he was insane is as dumb as dumb can get. I am not telling the Jews anything, the Jews interjected themselves into a conversation I was having, and I took a position. I can read the OT as well as they. I made it clear I knew nothing or cared anything about Talmudic Judaism. Ah, please point out any 'Lies" I told in the name of Jesus. I think your feelings are hurt, and rather than make any statements of substance, which you carefully have not done, you resort to BS. Tell me what parts of my own faith I present incorrectly ? Don't you realize that empty, nebulous statements, with no foundation, which you habitually make, are as worthless as tit's on a boar ? Put your big girl panties on, and get over your hurt feelings

 

[rosends]

Then what was the the scapegoat for ? why was it even called a scapegoat ? There was no reason for it to even exist ! For abjectly poor people who couldn't afford a blood offering in the daily sacrifice, they could use flour. However, it was never used on the day of atonement. The blood was sprinkled in the Holy of Holy' once a year. Lev. 16 addresses sin, it says ALL sin. It doesn't make a distinction between intentional or non intentional sin. Lev. 16; 20 "Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness" ???

1. It wasn't "called" a scapegoat. Read the Hebrew. It is a goat. It is called a goat.
2. There was reason for it to exist. It just wasn't about blood sacrifice. The fact that you don't understand doesn't mean you can make stuff up.
3. You clearly don't know what the atonement of the Day of Atonement was for in terms of personal vs communal sins. It wasn't to replace or subsume the daily atonement (you know, the one which didn't require blood).
4. I would say that understanding requires more than the written text but you deny that that has any validity because you have decided that you know better what Judaism is...

 

[shmogie]

1. It wasn't "called" a scapegoat. Read the Hebrew. It is a goat. It is called a goat.
2. There was reason for it to exist. It just wasn't about blood sacrifice. The fact that you don't understand doesn't mean you can make stuff up.
3. You clearly don't know what the atonement of the Day of Atonement was for in terms of personal vs communal sins. It wasn't to replace or subsume the daily atonement (you know, the one which didn't require blood).
4. I would say that understanding requires more than the written text but you deny that that has any validity because you have decided that you know better what Judaism is...

I clearly do know what the day of atonement was. The sins of ALL the people, read it, that is exactly what it says. Now, you may say that you don't believe that is what it says, or you may say it has to be interpreted, which I reject, but it is what it is, Once the blood sacrifice was made for atonement of sin, The sin of all the people was placed on it;s head, transferred to it. That is what the verse says, in 7 different translations, I checked. How is it you deny what the scripture says ? The goat DID NOT need to be sacrificed, because the atonement was complete with all of the other blood sacrifices This goat, dealt with the sins atoned for and forgiven. The priests weren't sacrificed either, but they were up to their elbows in the blood nevertheless. I haven't decided what your brand of Judaism is, I couldn't care less, it has no relevance to me
The idea that one cannot read and understand, that learned and special people must tell you what is clearly written is nonsense, and a cop out. Christianity went through the very same blather with Roman Catholicism. When was the last time you went to a day of atonement, or sacrificed a goat, or even presented some flour to atone for your sin? Yes, I know, it was changed. As I said that's between you and God, however what was written was clearly written, to deny that, or to say that it really doesn't say what it says seems to me an exercise in futility. Much better to spend your time explaining why it was changed and why that is acceptable, but, since I have no interest in it, don't waste your time on my account.

 

[shmogie]

Christians have a different meaning of the "New Covernant"
The reported teachings of Jesus in the four Gospels, have a very different slant to The Jewish Laws.
It is true that he was himself a Jew, and clearly knew the Law very well, but his interpretation of it, and the way he applied it to situations through his parables was exceedingly liberal, and extended beyond the Jews to the gentiles.

Paul never had the opportunity to learn from Jesus as a desciple, and while he was an important and influential apostle, he had to obtain his knowledge from those who had followed Jesus, and apply it to the new situation.
It could be argued that Christians should follow the law, but it clearly does not apply to Gentiles.
Christians are not a sect of Judaism.
Christians believe that Jesus brought a new message directly from God. It is on this that they base their faith.

Hmmm, Jesus's teachings NEVER compromised the Jewish law. His parables were also in harmony with the law. To say he was exceedingly "liberal" is wrong. Expanding the law about committing adultery to include lustful thought certainly isn't liberal. Paul says the knowledge of Christ and the Gospel he learned from no one, implying that it was divinely imparted to him. Peter and the other Apostles agree with this. You are correct, the law was given to the Jews, but Christians have what John called "the Royal law", everyone of the ten commandments is reiterated or expanded in the NT, except one. There certainly is a new covenant, The first was for the Jews and was based upon keeping a plethora of rules and laws. God said keep the laws and I will save you. The second or new covenant is based on faith and acceptance of Christ's perfect keeping of all the original law, in our place, dying, the penalty of our sins,in our place, and living again,representing being reborn as a new person in him.

 

[rosends]

I clearly do know what the day of atonement was. The sins of ALL the people, read it, that is exactly what it says. Now, you may say that you don't believe that is what it says, or you may say it has to be interpreted, which I reject, but it is what it is,

If you read it then you know that the day was only for particular communal sins, not individual ones, otherwise, there would never be any need for the daily sin sacrifices (you know...the ones which have no "transference" and which flour without blood can be used for).

Once the blood sacrifice was made for atonement of sin, The sin of all the people was placed on it;s head, transferred to it.

Interesting conflation. One goat is sacrificed and one is leaned on. The pertinent facts:
The one that is sacrificed is part of the process of atonement for communal "pish'eihem" and "chatoteichem" (2 categories of sin) (verse 15).
The other one which is leaned on has a confession said which symbolically transfers those 2 categories and also "avonot" (verse 21) so one entire category is excluded from the blood part and yet atonement is achieved via the non-killed goat on the day of atonement. So much for blood being necessary. Of course, this transference is symbolic, much like Micha 7:19, unless you think the essential part of Judaism is making the sea carry our guilt.
The funniest part is that you could easily contradict one of the claims I made if you quoted a section of the mishna Yoma, but since you reject the oral law, you are forced to stick with the text which supports the points I just made.

The idea that one cannot read and understand, that learned and special people must tell you what is clearly written is nonsense, and a cop out. Christianity went through the very same blather with Roman Catholicism. When was the last time you went to a day of atonement, or sacrificed a goat, or even presented some flour to atone for your sin? Yes, I know, it was changed. As I said that's between you and God, however what was written was clearly written, to deny that, or to say that it really doesn't say what it says seems to me an exercise in futility. Much better to spend your time explaining why it was changed and why that is acceptable, but, since I have no interest in it, don't waste your time on my account.

So I guess you have never read Hoshea. OK. I guess you have never learned the meaning of "shogeg" as it relates to atonement, or know what the "וְכִפֶּר בַּעֲדוֹ, וּבְעַד הָעָם" means. I understand that this would require study on your part and that's clearly anathema. You keep on keeping these weird ideas and keep insisting that you know what an entire religion that you know little about is and should be and is supposed to be.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

If you read it then you know that the day was only for particular communal sins, not individual ones, otherwise, there would never be any need for the daily sin sacrifices (you know...the ones which have no "transference" and which flour without blood can be used for).


Interesting conflation. One goat is sacrificed and one is leaned on. The pertinent facts:
The one that is sacrificed is part of the process of atonement for communal "pish'eihem" and "chatoteichem" (2 categories of sin) (verse 15).
The other one which is leaned on has a confession said which symbolically transfers those 2 categories and also "avonot" (verse 21) so one entire category is excluded from the blood part and yet atonement is achieved via the non-killed goat on the day of atonement. So much for blood being necessary. Of course, this transference is symbolic, much like Micha 7:19, unless you think the essential part of Judaism is making the sea carry our guilt.
The funniest part is that you could easily contradict one of the claims I made if you quoted a section of the mishna Yoma, but since you reject the oral law, you are forced to stick with the text which supports the points I just made.

So I guess you have never read Hoshea. OK. I guess you have never learned the meaning of "shogeg" as it relates to atonement, or know what the "וְכִפֶּר בַּעֲדוֹ, וּבְעַד הָעָם" means. I understand that this would require study on your part and that's clearly anathema. You keep on keeping these weird ideas and keep insisting that you know what an entire religion that you know little about is and should be and is supposed to be.

Belief I can find necessary.. Even before Christ.
The verse is introduced here to remind us that only the Lord Himself is aware of the sincerity.
I posted above that I found that in Jesus Christ.
I'm not stating anyone is dumb just getting I little more hints.

as far as what is spoken in regards as oral or law I don't know except for what is stated and spoken.

I think that men who starred at goats was a movie with George Clooney, I haven't seen it.
( As far Aaron and the goats in the wilderness; in regards to the pure mind transferring the iniquity to the goat)
I Just made some points; learned a little too.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

As for the flour I didnt see any blood in that verse so I wonder on it a bit too.
Flour Power!!
I think I would grasp
I mean by his spirit... lol
Not by might nor by power but by my spirit saith the Lord.

In regards to the dispute of Lev. 5:11 ( I'm not ritualistic but..)
But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil on it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering.

 

[moorea944]

Hmmm, Jesus's teachings NEVER compromised the Jewish law. His parables were also in harmony with the law. To say he was exceedingly "liberal" is wrong. Expanding the law about committing adultery to include lustful thought certainly isn't liberal. Paul says the knowledge of Christ and the Gospel he learned from no one, implying that it was divinely imparted to him. Peter and the other Apostles agree with this. You are correct, the law was given to the Jews, but Christians have what John called "the Royal law", everyone of the ten commandments is reiterated or expanded in the NT, except one. There certainly is a new covenant, The first was for the Jews and was based upon keeping a plethora of rules and laws. God said keep the laws and I will save you. The second or new covenant is based on faith and acceptance of Christ's perfect keeping of all the original law, in our place, dying, the penalty of our sins,in our place, and living again,representing being reborn as a new person in him.

I like your post, but there are a few things that I didnt really understand what you meant, but dont worry, I liked most of your words.

Jesus's teachings NEVER compromised the Jewish law.

Which one, the Mosiac law? I think it was compromised, that was just one of the reason the Jew's wanted to kill Jesus. Jesus publicly humilliated them (certain Jews) everywhere.

His parables were also in harmony with the law.

Again, I dont see that at all. His parables where about a Jesus's return and his coming kingdom.

The second or new covenant is based on faith and acceptance of Christ's perfect keeping of all the original law, in our place, dying, the penalty of our sins,in our place,

Well, the org, law, the Mosiac law changed. Paul even wrote that. Also, I didnt understand what you said about dying in our place. Are you talking about Christ? Are you talking about subsitution? just curious... Because he was not our subsitute. He was our representitive. He didnt die so we dont have to. The secret of the cross is love, the love of God and the love of His Son. Whatever else we many have to consider, let us lay down this foundation: The motivating force for redemption is love,
John 3v16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Romans 5v8 "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

Gal. 2v20 "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."

Love is the reason for redemption. Love flowed first from God and therefore from the Son whom He sent into the world. Love cannot be and must not be reduced to law or considered in terms of rights and earnings. Love owes nothing to any goodness or merit in us. Loves comes from God who is "merciful and graceious".

The cross is a source of the forgiveness of sins. It is not a debt settled by due payment. It is not a substitutionary offering whereby someone is paid a price so that others might then go free. No, the cross is the means of forgiveness and forgiveness is an act of grace and not of the rights or earnings by the settlement of a debt.

 

[shmogie]

If you read it then you know that the day was only for particular communal sins, not individual ones, otherwise, there would never be any need for the daily sin sacrifices (you know...the ones which have no "transference" and which flour without blood can be used for).


Interesting conflation. One goat is sacrificed and one is leaned on. The pertinent facts:
The one that is sacrificed is part of the process of atonement for communal "pish'eihem" and "chatoteichem" (2 categories of sin) (verse 15).
The other one which is leaned on has a confession said which symbolically transfers those 2 categories and also "avonot" (verse 21) so one entire category is excluded from the blood part and yet atonement is achieved via the non-killed goat on the day of atonement. So much for blood being necessary. Of course, this transference is symbolic, much like Micha 7:19, unless you think the essential part of Judaism is making the sea carry our guilt.
The funniest part is that you could easily contradict one of the claims I made if you quoted a section of the mishna Yoma, but since you reject the oral law, you are forced to stick with the text which supports the points I just made.

So I guess you have never read Hoshea. OK. I guess you have never learned the meaning of "shogeg" as it relates to atonement, or know what the "וְכִפֶּר בַּעֲדוֹ, וּבְעַד הָעָם" means. I understand that this would require study on your part and that's clearly anathema. You keep on keeping these weird ideas and keep insisting that you know what an entire religion that you know little about is and should be and is supposed to be.

OK Lets talk about "communal" sin, and atonement and "individual" sin, and atonement. In the daily sacrifice for sin, that you contend flour is equivalent to a blood sacrifice. If that were the case one would think that all the sacrifices would be of flour since that would save money and valuable livestock. Could it be that the God prefers a blood sacrifice but in mercy for poor people, for this sacrifice, he allows them the flour sacrifice ? Now, to "communal sin", I haven't found that term in the texts, it may be there, I haven't seen it. So what is communal sin ? I assume you agree that sin is the transgression of the law, the entire law. For illustration let's just use the big ten. So tell me, how does a community collectively commit adultery, or murder, or steal, or break the sabbath ? How does the collective population commit sin? The scripture says "the sins of the people" not the sins of the community, or nation, the individual sins of the people. Atonement by blood sacrifice. Now to the scapegoat, or goat. The verses say the sins of the people are placed upon it's head. You contend that this is symbolic, perhaps, but that is not what the verse says. Yes, I reject the oral law, or tradition. It say's what it says, I don't need someone telling me what it means. Yeah, you really dazzle with the Jewish terms and script, and you must continue the snide little remarks, a sign your argument is not nearly as strong in your mind as you contend it is.I will leave this childishness to you. So please, continue with the snide remarks and the smoke and mirrors of alleged superior knowledge and tradition. I will stay with what the text literally says, as it is written. You have yet to use the text as written to prove it says something it doesn't say, good luck with that. I want to point out the very first passover. The blood of innocent creatures was used to protect those of God, from Gods wrath. This of course was before the Torah, or Israel itself. So, from the first, the Jews were protected by blood, as the very first and foundation act of protection from God, innocent blood was instrumental

 

[shmogie]

I like your post, but there are a few things that I didnt really understand what you meant, but dont worry, I liked most of your words.

Which one, the Mosiac law? I think it was compromised, that was just one of the reason the Jew's wanted to kill Jesus. Jesus publicly humilliated them (certain Jews) everywhere.

Again, I dont see that at all. His parables where about a Jesus's return and his coming kingdom.

Well, the org, law, the Mosiac law changed. Paul even wrote that. Also, I didnt understand what you said about dying in our place. Are you talking about Christ? Are you talking about subsitution? just curious... Because he was not our subsitute. He was our representitive. He didnt die so we dont have to. The secret of the cross is love, the love of God and the love of His Son. Whatever else we many have to consider, let us lay down this foundation: The motivating force for redemption is love,
John 3v16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Romans 5v8 "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

Gal. 2v20 "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."

Love is the reason for redemption. Love flowed first from God and therefore from the Son whom He sent into the world. Love cannot be and must not be reduced to law or considered in terms of rights and earnings. Love owes nothing to any goodness or merit in us. Loves comes from God who is "merciful and graceious".

The cross is a source of the forgiveness of sins. It is not a debt settled by due payment. It is not a substitutionary offering whereby someone is paid a price so that others might then go free. No, the cross is the means of forgiveness and forgiveness is an act of grace and not of the rights or earnings by the settlement of a debt.

Jesus never compromised any of God's laws. You make the distinction of Mosaic law, it is all Gods law. The new law, the new covenant did not come about till the old law was completely fulfilled, in the Christ. The law required compliance, or death for breaking it. Contending that God puts away part of his law and ignores it, the penalty for sin, means God really didn't mean what he said. So Christ lived a perfect life in our place as a substitution for us, he died the penalty of sin, as our substitute. So the required perfect life was lived by us through Christ, and the penalty for our sin was payed through Christ. God required sinlessness to be right before the law, and death for breaking the law. Gods requirements were fulfilled. Christ is our substitute, and our advocate, It was not against the law to point out the failings or people, nor was it against the law to talk about the Spiritual kingdom of God. Christ said, "no greater love exists than that of one who lays down his life for his friends"

 

[Ben Avraham]

As for the flour I didnt see any blood in that verse so I wonder on it a bit too.
Flour Power!!
I think I would grasp
I mean by his spirit... lol
Not by might nor by power but by my spirit saith the Lord.

In regards to the dispute of Lev. 5:11 ( I'm not ritualistic but..)
But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil on it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering.

That's what is called a ritual as religions were concerned; if not by any other reason, by the fact that HaShem Himself, according to Jeremiah 7:22, never commanded that sacrifices be part of the religion of Israel.

 

[Ben Avraham]

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

If those question marks mean that you have been left with a lot of questions, don't be afraid to ask; that's what Jews are here for. (John 4:22)

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

If those question marks mean that you have been left with a lot of questions, don't be afraid to ask; that's what Jews are here for. (John 4:22)

I have another question? maybe two?

 

[Ben Avraham]

open critique of the 'establishment'.....is always a dangerous thing to do
but apparently reform was sought

Jesus as a sinner?.....
well that Fellow didn't make it to heaven....with all of His ability....

the rest of us are screwed

btw....the Golden Rule was not authored by the Carpenter
it was written in stone at least a thousand years before the Carpenter walked
heathen law

and the Carpenter would quote that old law first
as if the law of Moses was second in mind and heart

so the Pharisees came asking....and did not like the response
'and sought to have Him dead from that hour on....'
so says the book I have

 

[Ben Avraham]

I have another question? maybe two?

And I am all ears!