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

[Ben Avraham]

You made the assertions, not I, where are your references ?

In the texts I usually quote when I am posting.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Christians did not exist yet at that time. Christians started when Paul started preaching his gospel about 30 in the future.

No actually Paul killed Jews who believed in Jesus Christ. They did not have a name until Antioch.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Paul was tied to the roman-side, both as a Pharisee and also following in the like minded fashion of Herod/Pilate. Before .....

 

[Ben Avraham]

How do you know who composed the sanhedrin ? How do you know Pilate couldn't work with pharisees ? How do you know anybody didn't want Christ crucified ?

I am Jewish. So, I can interpret a text with the help of Logic.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Paul was tied to the roman-side, both as a Pharisee and also following in the like minded fashion of Herod/Pilate. Before .....

How badly did the temple get messed up between romans/kings of the area and the priesthood I would say that we both could agree they were all messed up coming even near the time that Jesus was born their issues stemmed to killing innocent people.

 

[shmogie]

Christians did not exist yet at that time. Christians started when Paul started preaching his gospel about 30 years in the future. Read Acts 11:26.

Actually Christianity, originally called THE WAY began with the Apostles, while Paul was entirely hostile to them. Unless, of course, you assert that the Gospel accounts are untrue, and were written after Paul. However, saying it means nothing, you must have proof to establish something totally contrary To what the overwhelming majority of NT scholars and historians believe

 

[Ben Avraham]

Paul was tied to the roman-side, both as a Pharisee and also following in the like minded fashion of Herod/Pilate. Before .....

Paul was never a Pharisee. Pharisaic Yeshivas would not take applications from Hellenist Jews. If you read the Catholic Encyclopedia, chapter on the NT, Paul is referenced as being the son of a well-to-do Hellenistic couple from Tarsus in the Cilicia. A Jewish couple but Hellenistic in culture.

 

[shmogie]

I am Jewish. So, I can interpret a text with the help of Logic.

You may be Jewish but your logic has the same value as a handful of dog c**p

 

[shmogie]

Paul was never a Pharisee. Pharisaic Yeshivas would not take applications from Hellenist Jews. If you read the Catholic Encyclopedia, chapter on the NT, Paul is referenced as being the son of a well-to-do Hellenistic couple from Tarsus in the Cilicia.

I am not a Catholic, and I don;t buy any of their BS, they have been proven wrong over and over and over again. How did they come to this conclusion ? What ancient documents did they quote ? What inscriptions ? You are buying it just because they said it ? Paul says he was a Pharisee, you have yet to prove him wrong.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Paul was never a Pharisee. Pharisaic Yeshivas would not take applications from Hellenist Jews. If you read the Catholic Encyclopedia, chapter on the NT, Paul is referenced as being the son of a well-to-do Hellenistic couple from Tarsus in the Cilicia.

I have a question. When did yeshivas begin?
10..

 

[Ben Avraham]

Actually Christianity, originally called THE WAY began with the Apostles, while Paul was entirely hostile to them. Unless, of course, you assert that the Gospel accounts are untrue, and were written after Paul. However, saying it means nothing, you must have proof to establish something totally contrary To what the overwhelming majority of NT scholars and historians believe

The Way aka the New Way was a nomination applied to the Sect of the Nazarenes a Jewish Sect organized by the Apostles of Jesus as homage paid to him for having been from Nazareth. The New Way because the group was the most recent Jewish sect in the First Century. Read Acts 9:1,2. That's the sect Paul would persecute in Damascus and everywhere especially after his application to join the Sect was rejected by the Apostles of Jesus. (Acts 9:26)

 

[Ben Avraham]

I have a question. When did yeshivas begin?
10..

With Ezra in Babylon although they existed before but known as the schools of the Prophets.

 

[Ben Avraham]

You may be Jewish but your logic has the same value as a handful of dog c**p

Well! Logic is so useful that I it is possible to prove the existence of God with the help of Logic and Physics.

 

[rosends]

Must you be so flippant in a discussion ? Judaism as it was is all I am concerned about. What it is today is nothing like what was laid down in the Torah, that is between you, your co religionists, and God. Actually, it is all irrelevant for me, a Gentile.

Commentaries are OK, but I SPECIFICALLY asked for verses from the book, not someone saying what they think it means. Are you sure you want Lev 5;11 to be the foundation of your argument ? You make an issue of unintentional sin whatever that may be, I am talking about the knowledgeable act in violation of the law. You still haven't addressed the issue of the day of atonement or the signifigance of the scapegoat. Human sacrifice is not the issue, one sinful man cannot die for another. As Paul says, sin came into the world by the act of one sinless man, Adam, remission and atonement was made by the second Adam, sinless, the Messiah, the Son of God, part of the Godhead itself. I am sorry the Jewish people missed it, it came to them first, no matter, it is what it is.

First, you say you are concerned with Judaism but then you dismiss much of what makes Judaism, Judaism. You don't want to accept the Talmud even though that defined Judaism from before the common era (at least the Mishna did). You want to ignore 5:11 even though it provides atonement without blood. You want to ignore the texts which demand tshuva (had you read what I cited, you would have seen the textual reference). You want to talk about sacrifices even though most of them had nothing to do with atonement. You want to cite the day of atonement but ignore that the Musaf service was a lot more than about atonement. So you hang your initial statement, that "The entire Jewish religion was based upon sacrifice by blood, as the transferred atonement for sin, the sin being transferred to the object of sacrifice." with such wonderful words as "ENTIRE" and "sin being transferred" when they do not represent Judaism except by your inaccurate understanding of what you think Judaism is.

And that notion that human sacrifice (if the human is sinless) can somehow even exist, let alone be efficacious is illogical according to Judaism and always has been

Please, speak for your limited vision, not for the religion.

 

[rosends]

I have a question. When did yeshivas begin?
10..

According to Jewish tradition, they began in the generation following Noah.

 

[Ben Avraham]

I am not a Catholic, and I don;t buy any of their BS, they have been proven wrong over and over and over again. How did they come to this conclusion ? What ancient documents did they quote ? What inscriptions ? You are buying it just because they said it ? Paul says he was a Pharisee, you have yet to prove him wrong.

You would be surprised of how much one can learn from reading Catholic Theology. I read the "Suma Theolgica " by Thomas Aquinas and I learned a lot, mind you! How they came to the conclusion that Paul was a Hellenist, I am not quite sure; I did from reading the NT and using Logic. What is this about ancient documents! They had less evidences to learn from than we have today. Don't put too much trust on Paul; he was of the kind of preachers fun of the saying: "Do what I say, though not as I do for I am sinner too."

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

You would be surprised of how much one can learn from reading Catholic Theology. I read the "Suma Theolgica " by Thomas Aquinas and I learned a lot, mind you! How they came to the conclusion that Paul was a Hellenist, I am not quite sure; I did from reading the NT and using Logic. What is this about ancient documents! They had less evidences to learn from than we have today. Don't put too much trust on Paul; he was of the kind of preachers fun of the saying: "Do what I say, though not as I do for I am sinner too."

I know he was a Pharisee lol

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

According to Jewish tradition, they began in the generation following Noah.

That way I would have to look into..

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

As far the other yeshiva Esra and Babylon
I thought we were talking about that monotheistic penis god or that other stuff.
The Talmud notes that the Hebrew numerical value (gematria) of the word "Torah" is 611, and combining Moses's 611 commandments with the first two of the Ten Commandments which were the only ones heard directly from God, adds up to 613.
I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 2[19] 6[19]
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
Thou shalt have no other gods before me
Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's wife) 17b[37] 21a[38]
Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's servants, animals, or anything else)

1. Not to even think that there are other gods besides Him — Standard->Ex. 20:3 Yemenite->Ex. 20:2

613.Not to sell her into slavery — Deut. 21:14
614.Not to retain her for servitude after having sexual relations with her — Deut. 21:14
I thought this was interesting.
Year 613 (DCXIII) was a common year starting on Monday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar. The denomination 613 for this year has been used since the early medieval period, when the Anno Domini calendar era became the prevalent method in Europe for naming years.

Events[edit]
By place[edit]
Byzantine Empire[edit]

• Emperor Heraclius marries his niece Martina, she becomes empress (Augusta) of the Byzantine Empire. This second marriage is considered to fall within the prohibited degree of kinship and is approved by the Catholic Church in Constantinople.
• January 22 – Constantine is crowned co-emperor (Caesar) by his father Heraclius and shortly after betrothed to his cousin, Gregoria, daughter of Nicetas. Only 8 month old, Constantine has no real power and his dynastic title is pure ceremonial.
• Byzantine–Persian War: Heraclius appoints himself commander-in-chief along with his brother Theodore (curopalates) to solidify command of the army.[1] The Persian army under Shahrbaraz capture the cities of Damascus, Apamea and Emesa.
• Battle of Antioch: Heraclius mobilished a Byzantine expeditionary force to Antioch (Syria) but is outside the city completely defeated by the Persians. Shahin Vahmanzadegan makes further inroads into Central and Western Anatolia.[2]

By topic[edit]
Religion[edit]

• Muhammad, islamic prophet, begins preaching in public. He spreads the message of Islam and encouraging a personal devotion to God. Arabic leaders from Mecca (Saudi Arabia) oppose any change in the traditional tribal and religious customs.

 

[shmogie]

First, you say you are concerned with Judaism but then you dismiss much of what makes Judaism, Judaism. You don't want to accept the Talmud even though that defined Judaism from before the common era (at least the Mishna did). You want to ignore 5:11 even though it provides atonement without blood. You want to ignore the texts which demand tshuva (had you read what I cited, you would have seen the textual reference). You want to talk about sacrifices even though most of them had nothing to do with atonement. You want to cite the day of atonement but ignore that the Musaf service was a lot more than about atonement. So you hang your initial statement, that "The entire Jewish religion was based upon sacrifice by blood, as the transferred atonement for sin, the sin being transferred to the object of sacrifice." with such wonderful words as "ENTIRE" and "sin being transferred" when they do not represent Judaism except by your inaccurate understanding of what you think Judaism is.

And that notion that human sacrifice (if the human is sinless) can somehow even exist, let alone be efficacious is illogical according to Judaism and always has been

Please, speak for your limited vision, not for the religion.

OK - In the entire 5th chapter of Leviticus the flour offering takes up one short verse, all the rest are blood offerings. It addresses someone who can't afford an animal to sacrifice, the flour is mixed with the blood on the Alter. So, I don't want to ignore it it is all about blood sacrifice except a short verse where flour is burnt on the alter with the blood. Talmudic Judaism is not the faith structure given by God in the Torah, it came long after. It IS NOT the Judaism of the Old Testament. You still have produced not one verse that contradicts Pauls statement that there is no atonement without blood. You still have not addressed the scapegoat. Once again, Talmudic Judaism is of no interest to me, Judaism morphed into what it is after it failed to recognize the Messiah. Therefore you can't recognize what God provided that was part and parcel of the original Judaism. Every sacrifice in the OT pointed to the ultimate sacrifice of the Christ, you just missed it. Don't conflate what was with what now is, apples and oranges. I bow to your infinite superior knowledge of Talmudic Judaism, just don't pretend it is what it isn't