Why did the blood have to touch people?

[Gnostic Seeker]

I am pointing out Hebrew is not a precise language and God should not have chosen to have his message written in Hebrew because it can be easily twisted. God should have picked Arabic or Sanskrit instead because of their accuracy and unambiguous precision.

The fact remains that Hebrews flat out rewrites the Torah for whatever theological agenda the author had.

 

[Simplelogic]

Again Paul a Pharisee was the author of both Galatians and Romans. Paul used his bartering skills as a Jew to appeal to the Gentiles. He was known as the apostle of the Gentiles.

All of the apostles were commissioned to the gentiles:

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
Acts 1:8

Peter was also told to go to the gentiles. Yet only Paul developed the concept of abrogating the Law.

 

[Simplelogic]

The fact remains that Hebrews flat out rewrites the Torah for whatever theological agenda the author had.

I have done a full critique of the book of Hebrews and compared it to the Torah. Its not pretty.

 

[Harikrish]

All of the apostles were commissioned to the gentiles:

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
Acts 1:8

Peter was also told to go to the gentiles. Yet only Paul developed the concept of abrogating the Law.

Paul was successful because the Gentiles could accept Jesus and be forgiven without having to turn Jewish and that was very appealing to the Gentiles.

But the thought of sharing their God with the Gentiles was not very appealing to the Jews. One would expect after 2000 years their attitudes would change.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

Paul was successful because the Gentiles could accept Jesus and be forgiven without having to turn Jewish and that was very appealing to the Gentiles.

But the thought of sharing their God with the Gentiles was not very appealing to the Jews. One would expect after 2000 years their attitudes would change.

I think it could be argued from the gospels alone that Jesus wasn't necessarily teaching to keep the law, but he definitely taught to follow his teachings: 'why say to me Lord, Lord, and not do the things I am saying?'

What Paul did was make it about believing Jesus died for sins.

 

[Simplelogic]

Paul was successful because the Gentiles could accept Jesus and be forgiven without having to turn Jewish and that was very appealing to the Gentiles.

But the thought of sharing their God with the Gentiles was not very appealing to the Jews. One would expect after 2000 years their attitudes would change.

Actually Gentiles were always allowed to become Hebrews. The Torah makes this very clear.

 

[Simplelogic]

I think it could be argued from the gospels alone that Jesus wasn't necessarily teaching to keep the law, but he definitely taught to follow his teachings: 'why say to me Lord, Lord, and not do the things I am saying?'

I would be willing to argue this point with you sometime. Every one of Yeshua's teachings were Torah.

 

[rusra02]

First error- “Calves and goats” - Goats were not used in this sacrifice. YHVH selected only oxen.

Second error- The blood was only sprinkled on the people, not the book.

Third error- There was no mention of “water, scarlet wool, hyssop” at all in this passage. He is confusing this story with Leviticus 14, which was used for the cleansing of a leper.

Fourth error- Once again, the author of Hebrews conveniently cuts off a verse in mid sentence. There seems to be a repeated theme of this author cutting off verses right before they mention the Torah. Interesting.

Hebrews says:
20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you ________????.”

Torah says:
, “This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you according to all these words.” Torah!! Exo 24:8

The Scriptures say "After that he sent young Israelite men, and they offered up burnt offerings and sacrificed bulls as communion sacrifices to Jehovah."
These burnt offerings could well have included goats.
The fact that the inspired writer of Hebrews adds details omitted in Exodus does not mean these are errors; for example. The sprinkling of blood on the book.

 

[Simplelogic]

The Scriptures say "After that he sent young Israelite men, and they offered up burnt offerings and sacrificed bulls as communion sacrifices to Jehovah."
These burnt offerings could well have included goats.
The fact that the inspired writer of Hebrews adds details omitted in Exodus does not mean these are errors; for example. The sprinkling of blood on the book.

He is not "adding details". He is misstating what actually happened. Where was the book sprinkled in Torah?

 

[Simplelogic]

HR ‘Regarding all these words’ | Spiritualbabies

 

[e.r.m.]

Ok, it wasn't just Hebrews

Exodus 24:8
Exodus 29:21

So back to the question, why did the blood have to touch the people, instead of them just accepting the sacrifice?

 

[Pegg]

Why is this mentioned only in Hebrews and not in the Torah? The Torah never says he sprinkled everything.

Exodus 24:6-8

6 Then Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and half the blood he sprinkled on the altar. 7 Then he took the book of the covenant and read it aloud to the people.+ And they said: “All that Jehovah has spoken we are willing to do, and we will be obedient.”+ 8 So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people+ and said: “This is the blood of the covenant that Jehovah has made with you in harmony with all these words.”+​

 

[Pegg]

First error- “Calves and goats” - Goats were not used in this sacrifice. YHVH selected only oxen.[/

Second error- The blood was only sprinkled on the people, not the book.

Third error- There was no mention of “water, scarlet wool, hyssop” at all in this passage. He is confusing this story with Leviticus 14, which was used for the cleansing of a leper.

Fourth error- Once again, the author of Hebrews conveniently cuts off a verse in mid sentence. There seems to be a repeated theme of this author cutting off verses right before they mention the Torah. Interesting.

Hebrews says:
20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you ________????.”

Torah says:
, “This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you according to all these words.” Torah!! Exo 24:8

The covenant really included all the various sacrifices... and the sacrifice for the sin offering was a goat.

If you look at the entire context of Hebrews, Paul is discussing the entire covenant, not only one aspect of it.

 

[Pegg]

Ok, it wasn't just Hebrews

Exodus 24:8
Exodus 29:21

So back to the question, why did the blood have to touch the people, instead of them just accepting the sacrifice?

It is likely symbolic. I dont know the precise answer but we do get a bit of a clue by Pauls words "all things are cleansed with blood" so just as water cleans the dirt off an item of clothing or of a bowl, so does blood cleanse a person from sin. It was Paul who made the statement at Romans 6:7 For the one who has died has been acquitted* from his sin". which shows us that upon our death our sins are atoned for.

Being sprinkled in the blood is likely a symbolic gesture signifying that the person is now 'washed' by the blood.

 

[e.r.m.]

Pegg,
I believe the blood conveys the death. The blood would have no significance if the animal from which it came was still alive. I think when God sees the blood on the individual, just like when the angel saw the blood on the houses during Passover, God sees the death on the recipient and his/her sons are atoned for.

 

[Pegg]

Pegg,
I believe the blood conveys the death. The blood would have no significance if the animal from which it came was still alive. I think when God sees the blood on the individual, just like when the angel saw the blood on the houses during Passover, God sees the death on the recipient and his/her sons are atoned for.

Its interesting that the scriptures say this:

Lev 17:10 “‘If any man of the house of Israel or any foreigner who is residing in your midst eats any sort of blood,+ I will certainly set my face against the one* who is eating the blood, and I will cut him off* from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves, because it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it.”​

It could actually be that the blood represents 'life' And this could be alluded to by the fact that we are told that Christs precious blood gives us everlasting life. Our blood is tainted with sin and death... but the blood of an 'unblemished and spotless lamb' is not tainted by such sin and therefore if we could actually take that life blood as our own, we can be set free from the consequences of sin, namely death. Hence everlasting life can be possible if we are symbolically sprinkled with the 'blood of the lamb' Jesus Christ.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

Exodus 24:6-8

6 Then Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and half the blood he sprinkled on the altar. 7 Then he took the book of the covenant and read it aloud to the people.+ And they said: “All that Jehovah has spoken we are willing to do, and we will be obedient.”+ 8 So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people+ and said: “This is the blood of the covenant that Jehovah has made with you in harmony with all these words.”+​

Yes that doesn't say what Hebrews says

 

[e.r.m.]

Pegg,
I haven't figured out how to make this quote thing work (I'm not diggin this new format).
Leviticus 17:10 is a great scripture, thank you. But there is a distinction between the animal sacrifice from before and Christ. Before the blood was not sprinkled symbolically on the person, it was sprinkled literally on the person. Why did it have to be sprinkled literally on the person before, and not now? Why couldn't it be symbolic for them?

 

[Harikrish]

Exodus 24:6-8

6 Then Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and half the blood he sprinkled on the altar. 7 Then he took the book of the covenant and read it aloud to the people.+ And they said: “All that Jehovah has spoken we are willing to do, and we will be obedient.”+ 8 So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people+ and said: “This is the blood of the covenant that Jehovah has made with you in harmony with all these words.”+​

The truth is men are terrible at handling blood.

 

[Pegg]

Pegg,
I haven't figured out how to make this quote thing work (I'm not diggin this new format).
Leviticus 17:10 is a great scripture, thank you. But there is a distinction between the animal sacrifice from before and Christ. Before the blood was not sprinkled symbolically on the person, it was sprinkled literally on the person. Why did it have to be sprinkled literally on the person before, and not now? Why couldn't it be symbolic for them?

Just hit the 'reply' button in the bottom right of the postbox.

I dont know the answer as to why it had to be sprinkled on them. It could be that the blood on the person may have meant that the person had been washed in the blood, or maybe it meant that the person had taken the blood of the offering upon themselves and accepted its atoning value.

It does remind me of Jesus words "unless you 'drink' my blood and 'eat' my flesh..." which we know was symbolic, but those expressions seem similar to the 'sprinkling' of the blood on the person to me.