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

[shmogie]

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."

You fail to address the issue

 

[shmogie]

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

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

 

[rosends]

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.

I just read 5:11. Where is the flour mixed with blood? Your contention that atonement requires blood is deflated. You say that this is only one case, but the fact that it exists undermines your position.

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.

No, no blood, and one verse just disproved your claim so, please, ignore whatever you want.

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.

Yes, that is your claim. It is wrong, but hey, have at it.

You still have produced not one verse that contradicts Pauls statement that there is no atonement without blood.

You mean besides 5:11 which does not mention blood. Got it.

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.

You mean it recognized a failed messiah., You got the words mixed up.

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

You are forced to rant and rave and try and deny precisely the Judaism that Jesus endorsed because it means that your belief system is wrong. That's fine. Have fun. I'll just continue to point out when you are wrong.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

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

 

[shmogie]

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

Leviticus 17;11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the alter to make an atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul. Hebrews 9;22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood and without the shedding of blood there is no remission

 

[shmogie]

I just read 5:11. Where is the flour mixed with blood? Your contention that atonement requires blood is deflated. You say that this is only one case, but the fact that it exists undermines your position.

No, no blood, and one verse just disproved your claim so, please, ignore whatever you want.


Yes, that is your claim. It is wrong, but hey, have at it.


You mean besides 5:11 which does not mention blood. Got it.

You mean it recognized a failed messiah., You got the words mixed up.



You are forced to rant and rave and try and deny precisely the Judaism that Jesus endorsed because it means that your belief system is wrong. That's fine. Have fun. I'll just continue to point out when you are wrong.

Give up the hyperbole, it is unbecoming for an alleged man of God. I am neither ranting or raving. Are you saying that the flour offering was burned on a specific vegetarian alter ? I hope not. If it was burned on the same alter with the blood offerings it HAD TO MIX with the blood. Or, are you saying the alter was scraped clean and no other offerings were burned until after the flour ? I hope not, because many many offerings were burned together at the same time, they came into contact with one another and were burned together

 

[rosends]

Give up the hyperbole, it is unbecoming for an alleged man of God. I am neither ranting or raving. Are you saying that the flour offering was burned on a specific vegetarian alter ? I hope not. If it was burned on the same alter with the blood offerings it HAD TO MIX with the blood. Or, are you saying the alter was scraped clean and no other offerings were burned until after the flour ? I hope not, because many many offerings were burned together at the same time, they came into contact with one another and were burned together

Oh, I see. Because the altar which was full of fire had had blood in it, the flour was "mixed" with blood and it was a necessary part of the process. That's where you are wrong. Let's assume that the altar had just been built, and the first person to bring an offering was a poor man who brought flour. The priest takes the proper handful and causes it to go up in smoke. Are you saying that since here was no blood, there was no atonement? Sounds like you are, and yet the text doesn't say that. Or maybe a series of poor people showed up and the fire kept burning for each, leaving only oxidization and ash. Does the last guy in the series not get atonement because there is no discernible blood? Oh, that's right -- microscopic blood. Not actually offered as this sacrifice, but it exists and therefore defines Judaism.

Note, I don't want your inferences and "commentary" -- Judaism isn't what you invent about the text. The text of 5:11-13 doesn't mention blood and yet you insist it is a necessary component. That's an invention on your part. And so your insistence that the entire of Judaism is based on blood sacrifice hinges on the fact that if someone had previously put blood on the altar and it hadn't burned off from the fire, blood might be present when spices were sprinkled over the flame.

Makes perfect sense. There might be pieces of hair and flesh. Judaism must be based on hair and flesh. And toe nails. And teeth -- they don't burn up so fast. Any other wonderful conclusions you want to draw?

And "man of God" What even IS that?

 

[Thief]

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. Yes, absolutely, Pilate had to keep the peace. Christ didn't embarrass Pilate, he couldn't have cared less about him. He had to keep his stooges, the sanhedrin in line as part of his method of rule. They were embarrassed. He did what he felt was required, but he did it in a way for them to understand clearly that he was in control

control?.....granted

for the disturbance in the temple the Carpenter was beaten
39 strokes of the lash is one stroke less than a death sentence

but the Pharisees wanted Him dead and He survived the beating

so they pointed their fingers and said....Son of God
Pilate cared not

so they pointed out the Son of God is King of the Jews
Insurrection!

So Pilate had Him crucified
wrote and nailed.....King of the Jews upon the cross
a declaration of the crime

and the Pharisees then realized.....anyone who stands forth as king would be killed by Rome
and their precious prophecy of a Messiah would never come to be

they objected.....and Pilate said....
I have wrote ....what I have wrote

 

[moorea944]

Well, I studied and taught them as well. Like so many, you totally miss what Luther was saying. BTW Luther was not disturbed, he was the greatest figure of the second millenium, saving Christianity from stupidity and superstition. Back to his quotation you failed to grasp, If someone is totally inherently committed to God, they will by nature want to do good, and as far as possible, shun evil. Perfectly reasonable, perfectly right. To barrabas. I have studied at length Roman military governors in conquered provinces circa 200 BC - 200 AD. They had vast latitude to do whatever required to rule their province and keep the peace. So "precedent " is irrelevant, they didn't rule by precedent nor by "the book", they did whatever they thought would work, It is clear that Pilate, having tried brute force with the Jews once, with mixed result, adopted a different tactic. Judea was probably most rebellious and religiously fervent province in the empire. The Jews had a religious leadership that knew that they were in position at the whim of Pilate. So, Pilate, holding the cards kept them in power as long as he could use them. Passover was the most dangerous time for the Romans. To make the Roman pill easier to swallow, he had the custom of releasing one prisoner at Passover. A simple gesture aimed at the masses to make them believe that the Romans were the tiny bit flexible, and totally within the power of Pilate. I remember when skeptics were denying that that ever existed or was in Judea, calling the Biblical accounts false. They had to swallow this when inscriptions from the era were found, I don't give much crtedence to skeptics arguments



You are right, but there is a distinction. Faith is the only way to salvation, period. James was saying that a person having the faith will do good works, if he doesn't his faith has died. Works are the result of true faith, not part of the means to achieve salvation. If it were, then how many good works are enough ? Does God keep a tally sheet ?

You are right, but there is a distinction. Faith is the only way to salvation, period. James was saying that a person having the faith will do good works, if he doesn't his faith has died. Works are the result of true faith, not part of the means to achieve salvation. If it were, then how many good works are enough ? Does God keep a tally sheet ?

I agree. It is faith. Works alone does not achieve salvation. But, what I was saying is that it is more than just "faith". You do need faith, but scripture tells us that there is also other things too for salvation....

 

[Thief]

Oh, I see. Because the altar which was full of fire had had blood in it, the flour was "mixed" with blood and it was a necessary part of the process. That's where you are wrong. Let's assume that the altar had just been built, and the first person to bring an offering was a poor man who brought flour. The priest takes the proper handful and causes it to go up in smoke. Are you saying that since here was no blood, there was no atonement? Sounds like you are, and yet the text doesn't say that. Or maybe a series of poor people showed up and the fire kept burning for each, leaving only oxidization and ash. Does the last guy in the series not get atonement because there is no discernible blood? Oh, that's right -- microscopic blood. Not actually offered as this sacrifice, but it exists and therefore defines Judaism.

Note, I don't want your inferences and "commentary" -- Judaism isn't what you invent about the text. The text of 5:11-13 doesn't mention blood and yet you insist it is a necessary component. That's an invention on your part. And so your insistence that the entire of Judaism is based on blood sacrifice hinges on the fact that if someone had previously put blood on the altar and it hadn't burned off from the fire, blood might be present when spices were sprinkled over the flame.

Makes perfect sense. There might be pieces of hair and flesh. Judaism must be based on hair and flesh. And toe nails. And teeth -- they don't burn up so fast. Any other wonderful conclusions you want to draw?

And "man of God" What even IS that?

what about that sprinkling of blood performed by Moses unto Aaron?

and were they men of God?

 

[Thief]

and the slaughter of the lambs?...the blood upon the thresholds
as the Jews awaited the Angel of Death unto the first born of Egypt.

 

[Thief]

The Sanhedrin was composed more of Pharisees than Sadducees. Pilate could not work with Pharisees. They did not want Jesus crucified. This is a slander. There is nothing more vital in the life of a Jew than the Law and, considering that Jesus
confirmed the Law down to the letter according to Mat. 5:17-19, no Jew would ever ask foreigners occupiers of our Land to execute a loyal Jew on the cross. If you read "The Wars of the Jews" by Josephus, Pilate would never listen to Jews whom he couldn't hate more. My assertion about the gospel writers having been former disciples of Paul is no empty speculation because there is not much of a difference between the gospels and the Letters of Paul.

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

 

[rosends]

what about that sprinkling of blood performed by Moses unto Aaron?

What about them? No one has said that there were no sacrifices, only that:
1. sacrifices did not cover atonement for many types of sin
2. some atonement could be effected without blood at all
3. sacrifices more often were for other reasons besides atonement, on a daily basis
4. there are plenty of other rituals that have nothing to do with blood and sacrifice so saying that the "entire" of Judaism is based on blood-atonement is ridiculous

and were they men of God?

There is a phrase in the Hebrew to that effect which refers to Moses as "ish elokim" -- it is in the first verse of the reading for Simchat Torah (Deut 33:1). I don't recall the text calling that name upon Aaron. That instance is the only one in the 5 books of Moses. It is found 50 other times in the entire of Tanach, to refer to a variety of other people, mostly prophets. Is that what you meant?

 

[Thief]

yeah....we are on to something....
I have read of a means a method.....
someone seeking relief would bring an animal
Moses would lay hands to the person and then to the animal
as if the guilt and sin could be transferred by touch.....as if by magical ritual.....
then someone 'appropriate' would lead the animal to the wilderness and stake it there
( to be sure it would not return)
and the offense dies with the scapegoat

was it not custom to sell birds in the temple.....for similar 'relief'?


as for the ritual between Moses and Aaron.....
not so much a means to atone for offense?
but more to a cleansing?

and what item is then removed?

it seems odd to me to make gesture of applying blood to thumb and toe....
as if blood is some sort of antiseptic.

 

[metis]

Well, I studied and taught them as well. Like so many, you totally miss what Luther was saying. BTW Luther was not disturbed, he was the greatest figure of the second millenium, saving Christianity from stupidity and superstition. Back to his quotation you failed to grasp, If someone is totally inherently committed to God, they will by nature want to do good, and as far as possible, shun evil. Perfectly reasonable, perfectly right. To barrabas. I have studied at length Roman military governors in conquered provinces circa 200 BC - 200 AD. They had vast latitude to do whatever required to rule their province and keep the peace. So "precedent " is irrelevant, they didn't rule by precedent nor by "the book", they did whatever they thought would work, It is clear that Pilate, having tried brute force with the Jews once, with mixed result, adopted a different tactic. Judea was probably most rebellious and religiously fervent province in the empire. The Jews had a religious leadership that knew that they were in position at the whim of Pilate. So, Pilate, holding the cards kept them in power as long as he could use them. Passover was the most dangerous time for the Romans. To make the Roman pill easier to swallow, he had the custom of releasing one prisoner at Passover. A simple gesture aimed at the masses to make them believe that the Romans were the tiny bit flexible, and totally within the power of Pilate. I remember when skeptics were denying that that ever existed or was in Judea, calling the Biblical accounts false. They had to swallow this when inscriptions from the era were found, I don't give much crtedence to skeptics arguments



You are right, but there is a distinction. Faith is the only way to salvation, period. James was saying that a person having the faith will do good works, if he doesn't his faith has died. Works are the result of true faith, not part of the means to achieve salvation. If it were, then how many good works are enough ? Does God keep a tally sheet ?

You know so little about Luther, which is obvious to anyone who's ever read a biography on him, plus you ignore what the Roman historians tend to think is most likely the scenario with the Barabbas narrative. All you're doing is fabricating stories, so I'm just going to move on.

BTW, it's "Barabbas", not "barrabas".

 

[metis]

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.

Again, just another fabrication of your imagination. According to the Tanakh, God can and does forgive regardless of the Temple sacrifices, and the latter was only dealing with unintentional sins, which also can be forgiven through asking God for forgiveness and making atonement. As rosends also stated, you really do not even get close to understanding this.

 

[shmogie]

Oh, I see. Because the altar which was full of fire had had blood in it, the flour was "mixed" with blood and it was a necessary part of the process. That's where you are wrong. Let's assume that the altar had just been built, and the first person to bring an offering was a poor man who brought flour. The priest takes the proper handful and causes it to go up in smoke. Are you saying that since here was no blood, there was no atonement? Sounds like you are, and yet the text doesn't say that. Or maybe a series of poor people showed up and the fire kept burning for each, leaving only oxidization and ash. Does the last guy in the series not get atonement because there is no discernible blood? Oh, that's right -- microscopic blood. Not actually offered as this sacrifice, but it exists and therefore defines Judaism.

Note, I don't want your inferences and "commentary" -- Judaism isn't what you invent about the text. The text of 5:11-13 doesn't mention blood and yet you insist it is a necessary component. That's an invention on your part. And so your insistence that the entire of Judaism is based on blood sacrifice hinges on the fact that if someone had previously put blood on the altar and it hadn't burned off from the fire, blood might be present when spices were sprinkled over the flame.

Makes perfect sense. There might be pieces of hair and flesh. Judaism must be based on hair and flesh. And toe nails. And teeth -- they don't burn up so fast. Any other wonderful conclusions you want to draw?

And "man of God" What even IS that?

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 know so little about Luther, which is obvious to anyone who's ever read a biography on him, plus you ignore what the Roman historians tend to think is most likely the scenario with the Barabbas narrative. All you're doing is fabricating stories, so I'm just going to move on.

BTW, it's "Barabbas", not "barrabas".

Interesting, you make unsubstantiated dumb statements, and consider yourself an authority, of what I don't know. Please move on, As to Luther, in 2000 The biography channel queried historians across the nation asking who was the greatest person of the second millennium. They selected Luther. You should correct them

 

[shmogie]

what about that sprinkling of blood performed by Moses unto Aaron?

and were they men of God?

What about them? No one has said that there were no sacrifices, only that:
1. sacrifices did not cover atonement for many types of sin
2. some atonement could be effected without blood at all
3. sacrifices more often were for other reasons besides atonement, on a daily basis
4. there are plenty of other rituals that have nothing to do with blood and sacrifice so saying that the "entire" of Judaism is based on blood-atonement is ridiculous

There is a phrase in the Hebrew to that effect which refers to Moses as "ish elokim" -- it is in the first verse of the reading for Simchat Torah (Deut 33:1). I don't recall the text calling that name upon Aaron. That instance is the only one in the 5 books of Moses. It is found 50 other times in the entire of Tanach, to refer to a variety of other people, mostly prophets. Is that what you meant?

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.

Interesting, you make unsubstantiated dumb statements, and consider yourself an authority, of what I don't know. Please move on, As to Luther, in 2000 The biography channel queried historians across the nation asking who was the greatest person of the second millennium. They selected Luther, you should correct them.

 

[shmogie]

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 ?

 

[metis]

Interesting, you make unsubstantiated dumb statements, and consider yourself an authority, of what I don't know. Please move on, As to Luther, in 2000 The biography channel queried historians across the nation asking who was the greatest person of the second millennium. They selected Luther. You should correct them

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