Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Does G-d Really Want a Blood Sacrifice?

Ever since the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., there has been an attempt in Rabbinic Judaism to downplay the importance of blood sacrifice.  It has been argued that sacrifice can be replaced with "comparable" means of atonement:
"It once happened that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai was leaving Jerusalem and Rabbi Yehoshua was walking behind him, when the latter saw the Temple in ruins.  Said Rabbi Yehoshua:  'Woe to us that this is in ruins, the place where the sins of Israel were expiated!' He [Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai] replied to him:  'My son, be not grieved, we have a comparable means of atonement.  Which is this?  It is [acts of] loving kindness, as it is said, 'For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, [Hosea 6:6]'" Midrash Avot D’rabbi Natan 4:5
The following verse is invoked to assert that G-d doesn't even want burnt offerings:
"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings," Hosea 6:6
But were the Prophets really trying to overturn Torah?  Were they trying to turn people away from establishing the Temple with its system of blood sacrifices?  Heschel has the following insights:
"Sacrifice, the strength and the measure of piety, acts wherein God and man meet--all this should be called obnoxious?
     Of course, the prophets did not condemn the practice of sacrifice in itself; otherwise, we should have to conclude that Isaiah intended to discourage the practice of prayer (Isa. 1:14-15).  They did, however, claim that deeds of injustice vitiate both sacrifice and prayer.  Men may not drown out the cries of the oppressed with the noise of hymns, nor buy off the Lord with increased offerings.  The prophets disparaged the cult when it became a substitute for righteousness.  It is precisely the implied recognition of the value of the cult that lends force to their insistence that there is something far more precious than sacrifice..."  Heschel, The Prophets
Now the deepest mystery regarding blood sacrifice is that the blood represents the bond of kinship.  So all of these blood sacrifices serve as a metaphor for a bond of kinship.  But kinship with whom?  In Genesis we have a clue:
"Vayomer Avraham Elohim yir'eh-lo haseh le'olah beni vayelchu shneyhem yachdav," Genesis 22:8
"And Abraham said: 'God will  a provide Himself the lamb for a burnt-offering, my son.' So they went both of them together," Genesis 22:8 (Jewish Publication Society)
Israel broke the covenant because in the Old Covenant there is no way to perfect the heart.  So the Prophets speak of a New Covenant in which G-d perfects our hearts so that we will want to follow the Torah.  Our own hearts are desperately wicked.  We need the heart transplant that only the New Covenant provides.

The Prophets tells us that G-d wants both the sacrifice and the right heart attitude.  Only in Yeshua can we have both.  In Him G-d has provided the sacrifice--the blood of kinship--and created a way to change our hearts.

Shalom,

Peter

142 comments:

  1. "Now the deepest mystery regarding blood sacrifice is that the blood represents the bond of kinship. "

    Um... Jesus' death wasn't a "blood sacrifice". (I am not even getting into the non-acceptability of the human sacrifice from the Torah point of view). The only time we see blood poured out of Jesus was when he was stabbed in the side when he was already dead and by then we are told that his blood supposedly separated into water and other elements. He was killed by the Romans, as have thousands of other Jews and other messianic wannabes, and his death and outright failure to fulfill a messianic mission had to be explained away by his followers. And explain away they did.

    To summarize, you as a Jesus-worshiper don't have any "blood sacrifices" via Jesus to replace Temple sacrifices either. It's just the imagination of the Christians and part and parcel of replacement theology (which has many aspects of replacement, not just replacing Jews with Christians).

    Also, Jews have NOT replaced Temple blood sacrifices with anything - why else do you think we are looking toward their full promised restoration? However, we do know that in the temporary absence of sacrifices (and this happened more than once in our long history), both prayer and mercy ARE indeed acceptable substitutes. As the prophet says:

    "Return to the L-rd and repent! Say to him: "Completely forgive our iniquity; accept our penitential prayer, that we may offer the praise of our lips as sacrificial bulls." (Hosea 14:2)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So a Gentile who wants to worship the God of Israel can only do so if he agrees to cut his shwantzel? Which is a rabbinic ritual, not Biblical?

      Delete
    2. Dan, Remi here didn't cut his anything and yet he worships the G-d of Israel instead of a long dead Jewish guy.

      Delete
    3. Anybody can worship the G-d of Israel. If you want to be Jewish, then you need to be circumcised.

      You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring.
      Genesis 17:11

      Delete
    4. Not so fast, guys...

      Where does it say in Scriptures that in order to be Jewish one needs to undergo circumcision?

      And can a gentile abide by all the Laws in the Torah?

      Delete
    5. Genesis 17 says that all Abraham descendent should be circumcised and those of his household who were not descendent. True, you can be Jewish and not being circumcised (like Moses when he was a child), but that would break a commandment. If you want to be Jewish, and keep the law, that's a good point to start. As a Jew, people have the responsibility to keep the law, as a whole. So the Rabbi and Jewish people in general don't want someone to convert and then not keep the law. After a few years, they could decide to eat pork, etc. But once you are Jewish, there is no way back. So, I think it make sense to start there. Note that women don't need to be circumcised (obviously) and can become a Jew. It's because it is not a law for ladies, but for men only. There are laws for the High priest, some laws for the levites, some laws for the Jews and some for everybody. If, as a non-jew, you want to keep the law, like keeping Shabbat, it's fine. Note that some Rabbi will say that you have to break the shabbat as a non-jew, which I don't think it's Biblical.

      But again, if you want to keep the law, you better start with not committing idolatry, which is a commandment for Jews and non-Jews.

      Delete
    6. Dan, where in the Torah does it say that a Gentile must be immersed in water to join G-d's people? Ah, I remember, the Christians plagiarized the Jewish conversion ceremony.

      And a Gentile can indeed abide by all Laws of Torah applicable to him. If they don't know which ones, they can grab a hold of a tzitzit of a learned Jew and ask him.

      Delete
    7. Where in the Written Torah there is a list of Laws pertaining to Gentiles and Laws pertaining to Jews? Well, I am a Jew and cannot find lists like that, but you are a learned Jew, a legend in your own mind, so can you show me?

      And if the gentiles plagiarized the Jewish conversion ceremony, how come they are not cutting their shvantzels?

      Delete
    8. Remi,

      Thank you for the patronizing, but how about answering my questions?

      Delete
    9. "Where in the Written Torah there is a list of Laws pertaining to Gentiles and Laws pertaining to Jews?"

      Everything is there, from Adam, to Noah and Moses. The sign laws of the covenant with Israel are also there, as well as myriads of Israel-the-people and the land-of-Israel specific and often tribe-specific laws that are not applicable to any other land or any other people.

      "And if the gentiles plagiarized the Jewish conversion ceremony, how come they are not cutting their shvantzels?"

      Very simple - for the same reason there were in the first century (and still are even today) far more female converts to Judaism than male - it was not something that adult males wanted to undergo (and without anesthesia). Paul found a convenient way out for the converts to his new man-worshiping Torah-free religion for the Gentiles.

      Delete
    10. "Everything is there, from Adam, to Noah and Moses. The sign laws of the covenant with Israel are also there, as well as myriads of Israel-the-people and the land-of-Israel specific and often tribe-specific laws that are not applicable to any other land or any other people."

      Now, can you furnish the lists please? For example, can a gentile keep the Shabbat?


      "Very simple - for the same reason there were in the first century (and still are even today) far more female converts to Judaism than male - it was not something that adult males wanted to undergo (and without anesthesia). Paul found a convenient way out for the converts to his new man-worshiping Torah-free religion for the Gentiles."

      Or, maybe because there no circumcision requirement to become a Jew in the Written Torah?

      Delete
    11. Gene,

      RE: "Also, Jews have NOT replaced Temple blood sacrifices with anything - why else do you think we are looking toward their full promised restoration?"

      Gene, you're disagreeing with your own rabbis who say that there ARE replacements for the sacrifices. Here's Rabbi Tovia Singer on the subject:

      "Throughout the Jewish Scriptures, the prophets declared that repentance and charity are more pleasing to God for atonement than a blood sacrifice. They repeatedly warned the Jewish people not to rely on blood offerings. Other methods of atonement were more efficacious and WOULD EVEN REPLACE ANIMAL SACRIFICES,[emphasis added]" Tovia Singer, from: http://outreachjudaism.org/outreach-judaism-responds-to-jews-for-jesus/

      Delete
    12. Remi and Gene,

      Dan is correct that the Torah says conversion occurs in the heart:

      http://orthodoxmessianic.blogspot.com/2013/08/hearken-shamar-then-peform-asah.html

      Delete
    13. "For example, can a gentile keep the Shabbat?"

      Let's see what the Torah says:

      "Say to the Israelites, 'You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between ME and YOU for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the L-rd, who makes you holy." (Exodus 31:13)

      "The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant." (Exodus 31:16)

      And a prophet: "Also I gave THEM my Sabbaths as a sign between us, so they would know that I the L-rd made them holy." (Ezekiel 20:1)

      I think it's quite clear to whom and for what reason the Sabbath rest was given by G-d. It was not given to the nations to observe - it's a sign of the very specific covenant between Israel and her G-d. Why would a Gentile who is not Israel be obligated to observe a sign that is between third parties? Our sages say that Gentiles are not only not obligated, they should not observe the Shabbat because this would signify that the sign of the covenant was made between the nations and G-d - which would be a patent lie. However, a Gentile who wants to voluntarily rest on that day may certainly do so, but not in the way Jews do, so as not to present a false impression that the sign is between him and G-d.

      Delete
    14. "Gene, you're disagreeing with your own rabbis who say that there ARE replacements for the sacrifices. Here's Rabbi Tovia Singer on the subject"

      Tovia absolutely right that the repentance is far more efficacious than any animal sacrifice, since without repentance and good deeds animal sacrifice is meaningless AND since one can achieve forgiveness from G-d without any animal sacrifice. Of course, the same prophets also foretell full restoration of animal sacrifices in the Temple, so nothing was being permanently replaced with anything, but only temporarily via spiritual repentance (which is what Tovia must have meant), until sacrifices were to be restored and the people hearts were once again offering them with right motives.

      "Dan is correct that the Torah says conversion occurs in the heart:"

      Everything occurs in the heart first, but then a person must actually act on that conviction, otherwise the so called "heart conversion" is meaningless like any other passing thought or sentiment.

      Delete
    15. You cannot have the cake and eat it too...Abraham's household was the first covenant community and there were strangers and slaves that were circumcised.

      If it was good for God to have them circumcised and remain in their old status, there is also good for God to have strangers obey Him with other Laws?

      So, we go back to my original question, where in the Tanach can we find that circumcision made someone a Jew?

      Delete
    16. Gene,

      RE:

      "Jews have NOT replaced Temple blood sacrifices with anything"

      "…so [no animal sacrifices were] being permanently replaced [but] only temporarily [replaced] via spiritual repentance…"

      Gene, first you say that the Jews have NOT replaced the blood sacrifices with ANYTHING. Then you say the blood sacrifices ARE replaced with something.

      Oh, and here's another gem from this Rabbi you admire. He says, in the same article:

      "There are three methods of atonement in the Bible--Blood Sacrifice is the weakest form of atonement."

      The High Priest alone was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur and to sprinkle blood on the Mercy Seat in order to make atonement "for ALL the sins of the Israelites" as a "statute FOREVER"---this you believe was the "weakest" form of atonement?

      No, it sounds like blood sacrifice was central (literally) to G-d's system of atonement because it symbolized the perfect and most powerful sacrifice of all-- Messiah Yeshua of whom Isaiah says "He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter" and "the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all".

      Shalom,

      Peter


      Delete
    17. Peter, I have to laugh at your attempt to use and misuse words of Tovia Singer of all people to defend Christianity:) Then again, the history of your religion has plenty of examples where words of Jewish sages and rabbis have been turned on their heads and abused to no end to prop up the very ideas that disgusted them.

      "Messiah Yeshua of whom Isaiah says "He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter" and "the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all". "

      First of all, this is a gross Christian mistranslation, as has been addressed in the past here and on my blog (http://dailyminyan.com/2014/08/05/article-isaiah-53-the-suffering-servant/). The servant is Israel, as throughout Isaiah. Only a few rabbis who mostly dealt with midrash and mysticism not with literal interpretation of text (e.g. Rashi) suggested that it may be "messiah", which it certainly does it say in the text itself, which consistently calls the servant "Israel".

      As for your lamb quote, in various contexts, the Bible uses the imagery of “sheep led to the slaughter” specifically in reference to the Jewish people. For example: “You give us as sheep to be eaten and have scattered us among the nations… we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered” (Psalms 44:12, 23).

      Delete
  2. "... and the right heart attitude. Only in Yeshua can we have both."

    The children of Israel had the right attitude without Yeshua... Weird, isn't it?!

    And Israel served the LORF all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders whose days were prolonged after Joshua, and who had known all the works of Jehovah, which he had done for Israel.

    Joshua 24:31

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Remi,

      If Israel had been perfect then why is it written:

      "31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

      32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

      33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people," Jeremiah 31:31-33

      Are you really going to argue against G-d's Word which says that Israel has been so unfaithful under the old covenant that a new covenant is necessary?

      Delete
    2. "Or, maybe because there no circumcision requirement to become a Jew in the Written Torah?"

      So, are you Jewish because you believe in Jesus and are baptised? Is that not replacement theology?

      Peter...

      First, please read the text. The covenant is with the house of Israel and Jacob.

      Second, are you saying that Israel is not G-d's people? As it is written "and they shall be my people"? If Israel is already his people, then we have to see it as renewed covenant.

      You also miss the end. The proof that it has not happened yet. But again, it's easy to use a prophecy that has not happened yet, and say it will happen. You say "it is with the house of Israel and Judah", but they will accept the new covenant when they will say, as Paul say "all Israel will be saved". But wait, I will ask you, why do you preach every saturday? Because, let face the truth, that's what the church does, no? It teaches sins and how to repent! But let see what that Bible verse say:

      No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

      So Peter, did that prophecy happened yet, as one of the "proof" of Jesus, or that's for his second coming? Because if it is for his second coming,... let's wait and see, you cannot use it as proof

      Delete
    3. "So, are you Jewish because you believe in Jesus and are baptised? Is that not replacement theology?"

      What a stupid remark...I am Jewish because I am Jewish, you are a goy because you are a goy...

      Delete
    4. "I am Jewish because I am Jewish, you are a goy because you are a goy..."

      At first, I thought that Remi was simply describing One Law gentiles who like to pretend to be Jews/Israelites or that they became ones because they "believe in Jesus". But then I remembered a statement by Paul where he predicated one being a Jew on having a belief in Jesus (or as he calls it, having "circumcision of the heart"), dismissing any "disbelieving" Jew as "not a Jew" (Romans 2:28). From there, the leap to calling most Jews as "not a Jew" and calling Gentile Christians as "true Jews" (or Israelites) was always a short one as the history of Dan's man-worshiping religion shows.

      Delete
  3. Sorry Dan, I was not trying to be stupid. I know you are a Jew, but your comment makes no sense. If you are a descendent of Abraham, you should be circumcised. Now, you are Jewish even if you are not circumcised, but your parent would have break the commandment.

    Do you realize that the word flesh is בָּשָׂר and the word foreskin is עָרְלָה. now if you are a Jew that knows Hebrew, you know that it means what it means because your parents told you. Now the Bible does not explain what part it is you have to cut more than saying עָרְלָה. You understand it means foreskin, because your mother of father told you or because you learned the word on a way or another. You don't wonder what it means, because someone told you. This is an oral law, in a way. This is the same with the covenant of circumcision, it does not say that you have to be circumcised to be Jewish nor that you have to take upon yourself to keep the law. Please note that not everybody that are circumcised are Jewish, but if you want to join Israel, you have to. "No foreigner may eat it (passover lamb). Any slave you have bought may eat it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident or a hired worker may not eat it."

    And Dan, tell me, if you don't get circumcised, you won't bother to keep the law or marry someone who is not Jewish. Then if a few generations, nobody will know you are Jewish and your line will be cut off... That's simple, no?

    And by the way, the word "goy" is pejorative, I have not said anything rude to you, so, for your information, it's as pejorative as when John said "the Jews".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "And by the way, the word "goy" is pejorative, I have not said anything rude to you, so, for your information, it's as pejorative as when John said "the Jews"."

      Dan actually thinks very little of Gentiles and treats them as foolish blind puppies who need his sage-like benevolent guidance as the only (or just about only) token ethnic Jew in the whole One-Law movement. This is why he uses the word "goy" so often (usually in a pejorative manner).

      Delete
    2. Patronizing me, when you don't know what being a Jew is being rude...So until you and yours were on the receiving end you are not qualified to lecture to Jews, get it?

      And how do you know what my mother told or didn't tell me?

      Delete
    3. So tell us, if you are wiser than all who is a Jew?

      And how do you know what my mother told or didn't tell me?

      If you would have read the whole comment and not skip half, you would have read "or father told you or because you learned the word on a way or another."

      Delete
    4. "So tell us, if you are wiser than all who is a Jew?"

      I am a Jew and you are a goy...A condescending goy..

      Delete
  4. I'd rather be a "goy" that follows G-d, than a Jew that follow a dead-man :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me, too, Remi. A MUCH better place to be, infinitely more lofty, speaking from experience. In fact, our sages warn Gentile converts who don't intend to observe Torah that it would have been far better for them to remain non-Jewish, than to become a Jew and then apostatize and return to idolatry.

      Delete
    2. "Dan actually thinks very little of Gentiles and treats them as foolish blind puppies who need his sage-like benevolent guidance as the only (or just about only) token ethnic Jew in the whole One-Law movement. This is why he uses the word "goy" so often (usually in a pejorative manner)."

      I think the same of some smart ass Jews like you, dear guru...

      Delete
    3. "I think the same of some smart ass Jews like you, dear guru..."

      Dan, that you, being a convert to Christianity, think little of "unbelieving Jews" who remained in the Jewish faith and community, is not news to anyone.

      Delete
    4. "I'd rather be a "goy" that follows G-d, than a Jew that follow a dead-man :)"

      So, your idea of following God is to discard the prophets from your Bible....A goy is a goy is a goy...

      Delete
    5. I am not a convert to Christianity and you know it...At one time you have been a "convert" just like me...until you converted back to Judaism...What Judaism did you convert to? Orthodox, that believe in the Rabbis words instead of God's? Conservatives, who sit on the fence and don't know which way to go? Reform, Who ordain gay rabbis and perform gay marriages? Conservatives, who took God completely out of the pictures? which Judaism Gene, inquiring minds are dying to know...?

      Delete
    6. Hey Dan, I am not less because I am not a Jew, but there is a bunch of "goy" that sees your racist comments and think that all Jews are like you. You are a disgrace for any Jew, and I have met a lot! Jews that believe in Jesus and Jews that don't and I have never seen anybody like you. Keep on thinking you are superior to anybody else and keep being narcissist, but you are the lower of them all and don't even follow your rabbi Yeshua that says that if you want to enter in the kingdom of G-d you have to see yourself low. Keep on deceiving yourself, you are racist and don't know that G-d created all man in his image!

      Delete
    7. Like I said before, Remi, until you and yours were on the receiving end, you are not qualified and have no business lecturing Jews...Learn not to talk to Jews from high up...Come down from your high horse...From all the people and religions you say you learn, humility they did not teach you....

      Delete
    8. I don't think I am superior to anybody Dan, but you do. It looks like you listen to goys after all

      Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, "I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding."

      Delete
  5. "I am not a convert to Christianity and you know it...At one time you have been a "convert" just like me...until you converted back to Judaism..."

    I was a convert to Christianity, Dan - just like you are still very much one. Confessed and baptized, again just like you, a Jesus-worshiper of Jewish ethnicity. And of course, no conversion back to Judaism was necessary for me when I returned to Judaism - I merely repented of idolatry and re-joined the Jewish community.

    "What Judaism did you convert to? Orthodox, that believe in the Rabbis words instead of God's?"

    I am part of Orthodox Judaism, yes. Rabbis believe the Word of G-d and I learn a lot from rabbis (but I don't need to agree with everything all of them have said or say today - Judaism accepts disagreements - read the Talmud).

    But you - worshiper of a dead man - should be the last to talk about believing human beings instead of G-d. You believe the Christian "apostles" (your "rabbis"), Paul and the false man-god "rabbi Yeshua", and the whole Church-scribes-penned "New Testament" over the Word of G-d.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A part of Orthodox Judaism for how long? Until you fall in love with Budhism? Don't you have a track record for adopting the religion flavor of the day?

      And as part of Orthodox don't you denounce all other Judaism as not Jews? Give us a break...

      Delete
    2. "A part of Orthodox Judaism for how long? Until you fall in love with Budhism? Don't you have a track record for adopting the religion flavor of the day?"

      Dan, hypocrite much? You yourself changed religions! You think that your continuing in a vile man-worshiping idolatry is somehow a virtue? Because of your pride that you refuse to repent and return, preferring to boast in your idol (Psalm 97:7). At least I swallowed my pride and returned to Judaism.

      Delete
    3. "Don't you have a track record for adopting the religion flavor of the day?"

      Only fools believe they are right and cannot be wrong. But if you don't believe and think you are so much superior than anybody, then you will keep on following your own folly! Gene had to be humble and check if what he believes was true. That's the difference between Christianity and Judaism. Jews should ask questions, but Christians should accept answers without questions.

      Delete
    4. You are not a Jew..Hay, Gene, how much you paying this guy?

      Delete
    5. The only Jewish thing about you is your blood. For the rest, you are following the abominations of the nations. Gene did not pay me a dime, anybody that has not been blinded, as Psalm 115 describe, can see that Jesus fulfilled nothing and you put your hope in a vain thing.

      Delete
  6. Forget it Gene...

    Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bravo...You know how to read...

      Delete
    2. Remi, I am not attempting to change his mind, just to expose the foolishness of hardened idolatry.

      Delete
    3. Wow, Gene, I am doing the same thing with you...You see, we Jews are alike...

      Delete
    4. So the LORD is an idol for you Dan? How many times a day you pray to a status Gene? How many times a day you put a second god in front of YVHV?

      Delete
    5. "Wow, Gene, I am doing the same thing with you"

      Dan this retort sounds kinda strange, don't you think, considering that I am not the one worshiping a long dead guy or any other creature.

      (But, let me guess what you're going to reply with like a broken record - "you worship rabbis" - which is of course as ludicrous as it sounds. I don't worship any rabbi, any man, not even Moshe and all of human beings are fallible men unworthy of worship due to G-d alone. If any one, YOU worship a "rabbi" as god - a dead man)

      Delete
    6. But for how long? Until you fall for a long dead guy of Budhism? You are the yo-yo, not me... and please answer my question...are all other Jewish denomination are not Jewish, as your agudat harabanim said in 1997? Are only Orthodox go to heaven?

      Delete
    7. "But for how long? Until you fall for a long dead guy of Budhism?"

      You know how the saying goes: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me".

      I don't intend to be fooled twice by the idolatrous nonsense from any quarter, you know, the stuff that you're still mired in.

      "please answer my question...are all other Jewish denomination are not Jewish, as your agudat harabanim said in 1997? Are only Orthodox go to heaven?"

      The halachic Jews in those "denominations" are as Jewish as the most Orthodox of rabbis. But those denominations themselves may be "Jewish", they are not Judaism. They deny or ignore Torah and halacha, all in their effort to be more compatible with the non-Jewish world.

      Delete
    8. Well, I don't know if you are smart enough to detect the fooling... You know how the saying goes, "you did it twice, you will do it again..."

      "The halachic Jews in those "denominations" are as Jewish as the most Orthodox of rabbis. But those denominations themselves may be "Jewish", they are not Judaism. They deny or ignore Torah and halacha, all in their effort to be more compatible with the non-Jewish world."

      Like I said, only the Orthodox are going to heaven...

      Delete
  7. No, no, I was actually using critical thinking instead of just blindly believing in Jesus. But don't worry.... you are blessed!

    Blessed are those who believe without seeing my friend. Yes, Yeshua is your messiah, we won't make you change your mind.

    Let me put it like it, I saw the side of Jesus and followed and listen and everytime I had doubt, I prayed to Jesus. Then I looked on the other side of the coin, not in a messianic book or a christian website, then I realized it was just a big lie! But there is no nice way to tell you that Mr Benzvi! You concecrated your whole life and all your mind and soul to a lie. But you are blessed! don't worry, you follow the gods of your fathers isn't it? They all worshipped Jesus!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, maybe you should try first to change your wife's mind? Instead of hacking us a chynick (ask Gene) with your uneducated remarks?

      Delete
  8. Before you start insulting... maybe you can point to me which part of my comment was uneducated?

    And for my wife, everybody is in a free world, so she can worship whatever she wants, and you to. And I can say whatever I want too, in that website (as long as I am not insulting) and you should be fine with it. Unless you have a problem with free speech.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "There has been an attempt in Rabbinic Judaism to downplay the importance of blood sacrifice."

    Without a doubt, it was hugely important, then the moment it is taken away, not so much. If the era of Biblical Judaism could have seen Modern Judaism, would it have even recognized it as the continuance of the same religion, more than likely not, it would probably oppose Modern Judaism. Most brush this away with simply stating that Judaism can change its shape throughout time, regardless it does not satisfy this direct conflict with the Temple and animal sacrifices. Of course, there are movements within Modern Judaism, who actually see the importance of the Temple (including the purpose of animal sacrifices) and are working to re-establish its purpose.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Without a doubt, it was hugely important, then the moment it is taken away, not so much."

      Zion... first of all, blood sacrifices were NEVER at any point in Jewish history more "hugely important" than repentance from sin. G-d Himself says that He didn't (initially) requested them.

      "For when I brought your ancestors out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices (Jeremiah 7:22)"

      There were far more important things on G-d's mind:

      "but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in obedience to all I command you, that it may go well with you. (Jeremiah 7:23)"

      Secondly, ALL Orthodox Jews ask G-d EVERY DAY for restoration of daily Temple sacrifices in our Amidah prayer (benediction #17), the core of all Jewish prayers. And every morning before the Shacharit service we read detailed Mincha instructions on HOW one is to do it, how to prepare this and that, what one to avoid doing to not make mistakes and even punishments for them. Talmud, composed after the Temple destruction, is filled with detailed instructions on how to conduct sacrifices, on selecting proper animals, on using proper slaughter techniques, on mixing spices, on conduct of priest and Levites.

      This is not the first Jewish exile and not the first Temple destruction, although the longest. Prophet Daniel in Babylon didn't practice a different religion simply because he was praying toward Jerusalem three times daily the way Orthodox Jews still do and he too couldn't bring sacrifices into a non-existent Temple. (Although had you live back then, you'd bring the same exact accusation of creating "different religion" against him, no doubt).

      Delete
    2. ""For when I brought your ancestors out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices (Jeremiah 7:22)"

      Note: the word 'just' is from NIV, and doesn't appear in Hebrew (or in other Christian translations for that matter). Bad translation.

      Delete
    3. Hi Gene, we haven't spoken in a while and I haven't been here in a while, nice to speak with you again.

      Zion... first of all, blood sacrifices were NEVER at any point in Jewish history more "hugely important" than repentance from sin. G-d Himself says that He didn't (initially) requested them.

      I never made an argument that pitted animals sacrifice importance over/or against repentance from sin, so you can pat yourself on the back for winning your own strawman argument. They go hand in hand.

      It is true God did not require any form of animal sacrifice in the Garden of Eden, but it is not much longer after sin was committed that we see animal sacrifice (i.e. Abel).

      This is not the first Jewish exile and not the first Temple destruction, although the longest. Prophet Daniel in Babylon didn't practice a different religion simply because he was praying toward Jerusalem three times daily the way Orthodox Jews still do and he too couldn't bring sacrifices into a non-existent Temple. (Although had you live back then, you'd bring the same exact accusation of creating "different religion" against him, no doubt).

      Not at all, I would have never leveled such an accusation against Daniel, because Daniel would not have discounted animal sacrifices or tried to twist the text to fit his current needs. Hence, we see the rebuilding of the Altar and Temple services before anything else (Ezra).

      Delete
    4. "because Daniel would not have discounted animal sacrifices or tried to twist the text to fit his current needs. "

      Zion, the Jewish sages discounted and twisted nothing - they only reflected the reality and coped with it. They did a fine job under the circumstances and were tasked with guiding the Jewish people through the long and terrible exile. The Bible itself is clear that G-d prefers contrite heart and repentance far above sacrifices and the G-d loves and forgives Israel, Temple or not. This is what allowed us to preserve and survive as a people to this day, ignoring the cruel, heartless, triumphalist taunts of Christian detractors and naysayers for the last two thousand years.

      As far as what Daniel would have said or not about any specific topic that he didn't address, you're arguing from silence.

      Delete
    5. "because Daniel would not have discounted animal sacrifices or tried to twist the text to fit his current needs. "

      Regardless of his thoughts on animal sacrifice, Daniel did not have a blood sacrifice. Thus, as per christian theology, he should go to hell. As per your scripture, Jesus is the only way, the only truth and only life and without blood there is no atonement for sin, thus Daniel, as per Hebrews and John is in hell, regardless that the Bible say he was righteous.

      Saying that Jesus blood worked on Daniel because G-d is out of time is also unprovable.

      Delete
    6. They did a fine job under the circumstances and were tasked with guiding the Jewish people through the long and terrible exile. The Bible itself is clear that G-d prefers contrite heart and repentance far above sacrifices and the G-d loves and forgives Israel, Temple or not. This is what allowed us to preserve and survive as a people to this day, ignoring the cruel, heartless, triumphalist taunts of Christian detractors and naysayers for the last two thousand years.

      Gene, I completely agree. However no one is perfect.

      As far as what Daniel would have said or not about any specific topic that he didn't address, you're arguing from silence.

      The actions recorded in Ezra speak loud enough.

      Delete
    7. Hello Remi, nothing of what you said has any relevance to anything I have said.

      Regardless of his thoughts on animal sacrifice, Daniel did not have a blood sacrifice. Thus, as per christian theology, he should go to hell.

      Good thing I don't adhere to Christian Theology then, yikes! However I know this is not true, most Christians believe that prior to Yeshua's atoning work, the righteous were saved. You would be hard pressed to find an 'educated' Christian make such a claim.

      As per your scripture, Jesus is the only way, the only truth and only life and without blood there is no atonement for sin, thus Daniel, as per Hebrews and John is in hell, regardless that the Bible say he was righteous.

      Saying that Jesus blood worked on Daniel because G-d is out of time is also unprovable.


      Just so you are aware, there is not one monolithic view on these topics. This is why I stated most of your arguments lack relevance or at the very least, are off topic of what I stated. If I have time at some point I will try to address these from my studies. The book of Hebrews is quite difficult for even many Christians to understand, I would classify you in that same category.

      I also saw you made a couple of post below, on blood and atonement, this link might address some of your statements:

      http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/theology/atonement-questions-and-answers

      **Before you make anymore assumptions about my beliefs, the link I posted comes from an organization that I do not adhere to. Just so you know, I have not read the link I posted to you, as I don't have time right now, but I imagine it will address some of your points if that is something you are interested in.

      Delete
  10. Hi Zion, the only place that you can find in the whole Tanakh about blood atonement is in Leviticus. If you look at the intent of the text, it is for the Israelites to know what is acceptable to eat and what is not. It is not part of Leviticus 4 or 5 that talks about atonement.

    10 “‘I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people. 11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.[c] 12 Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood.”

    Furthermore, other things, like flour, were used to atone for someone sin.

    I want to add a comment that might help to understand the purpose of blood for temple cleansing by Jim D.

    "...As you know, your friends had blood atonement in mind — that there is no forgiveness without blood. Hebrews… blah, blah, blah.

    The thing is, Christians don’t “get” the truth of blood atonement because their vision is completely distorted by the NT. They can’t see what’s actually written in Exodus and Leviticus regarding blood sacrifice. Granted, it is confusing at first and takes some study to sort everything out. But if you follow the blood — like detectives say, “follow da money!” — your eyes will indeed be opened.

    Blood is used in the Torah in a handful of specific ways, and Torah comes right out and tells us the specific purposes in most cases. In Exodus, there are two: The night of the Exodus from Egypt, blood was used for protection, as a marker. (It had nothing to do with atonement for sin.) And when Moses sprinkled blood on the people at Sinai after the Golden Calf incident — it was the blood of the Covenant.

    There is the exception here and there, but for the most part, there were three types of animal sacrifice: burnt, well-being (or “peace”) and sin offerings.

    The burnt offering was purely a gift to God, to show appreciation, etc. All of it went up to the heavens in smoke. The peace offering was partially turned into smoke, and parts of the flesh then consumed. But it is the “sin” offering that is of great interest here.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As a lead-in, its important to understand that the overall concept in Torah is that people’s sins pollute the land — we have all read verses about not defiling the land — and the sanctuary as well. There are three primary objects of the sanctuary, each progressively more holy: the altar, the incense altar, and the ark in the Holy of Holies. The more severe the sin, the further in the pollution pushes. An individual, involuntary sin pollutes the sacrificial altar; An involuntary communal sin pollutes the incense altar; and brazen and unrepentant sins pollute the ark itself. God made it clear that He would not reside in the tent of meeting if it was full of sin contamination. Therefore, it needed to be regularly purged.
    Now, if you look carefully from Exodus Chapter 29 through Leviticus, you will see how sacrificial blood is handled.

    In many instances, the Torah comes right out and tells us what the blood is for. In Ex. 29, for example, blood is applied to Aaron and his sons to consecrate them: “This is what you shall do to them in consecrating them to serve me as priests:…” (Ex. 29:1) Blood is then applied to the altar, some sprinkled on their vestments, and a small bit applied to their right ears, thumbs and toes. Note that this was done to consecrate the priestly line and this is an exception. The only other time blood was ever applied to a person was to one who had recovered from scale disease, because scale disease was considered to represent death, and blood works its magic due to its life. At no other times than these two, do you find blood being applied to persons.

    “Purification Offering” is a more correct translation of the Hebrew than “sin offering”. If you follow what happens with this blood, you will see that it is applied to the horns of the altar or sprinkled on the incense altar or on the ark covering on Yom Kippur.

    Follow the steps for Yom Kippur in Leviticus 16. (There is a crossover of one animal, but I won’t get into that detail at this point.) Notice the purification is done in reverse: First the ark. And, by the way, notice what the Torah says about what that blood does: “Thus he shall purge the Shrine of the uncleanness and transgression of the Israelites, whatever their sins.” (Lev. 16:16) Then the tent of meeting, and finally the altar: “Thus he shall cleanse it (16:19)

    Voila! All clean!! As it says: “When he has finished purging the Shrine, the Tent of Meeting and the altar…” (16:20) Notice something? It says nothing about purging the people.
    Now, look what happens: The people’s sins are removed by the LIVE goat!

    “Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat and confess over it ALL the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites, whatever their sins, putting them on the head of the goat; and it shall be sent off to the wilderness by a designated man. Thus the goat shall carry on it all their iniquities…” (16:21-22)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Finally, Leviticus sums up the steps in 16:33. These are distinct, separate steps.

    You may ask: Why would the blood of the purification offerings be applied to these holy objects instead of the sinful persons? Because they have already personally “atoned” through punishment and/or repentance. It is only after personal atonement (in the sense of forgiveness) that they could approach the sanctuary with their sin offering and the blood used for atonement in the sense of purifying. The purpose there was not to purify the person, but to purify the holy objects in the sanctuary that were polluted by their sins.
    Blood cleanses the Temple, not the people.
    And Christians say Jews are blind? Just look and tell me who is blind!

    So what’s are the lessons here? First, this answers one of messianic’s favorite questions: How do you atone for your sins when there is no Temple?? Oh my! Well, the answer is simple: When there’s no Temple to purify, we don’t need blood to do it!
    Personal atonement is accomplished through punishment and/or confession, regret, repentance and asking for forgiveness. We all know the relevant verses.

    With the correct understanding of the use of blood in regard to sin, one instantly recognizes that the so-called atoning blood of Jesus is complete and utter nonsense."


    Hope it helps you. And as Gene said, a dead man on a cross does not equals a blood offering nor a proper sacrifice. It's good you show that bood is important, but your solution is inadequate for the problem. It's would be like you point out that my car missing a wheel, but giving me a square one. It won't help to resolve my problem, my car needs a round wheel to be able to go!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Speaking of burnt offerings,my wife treats me like a god, she brings me burnt offering every night for dinner...

    Have a great Shabbat you all...

    ReplyDelete
  14. Have a great Shabbat you all...

    You mean you Jews or you include the goys?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to Orthodox Judaism, goys are not to keep Shabbat, at least in any way relating to the God's commandments, thus it is no longer Shabbat.

      With that being said, I need to get ready for Shabbat!

      Shabbat Shalom Dan!

      Delete
    2. What do you think?

      Delete
  15. I think most messianic keep half Shabbat and reinvent rules that fits their own understanding.

    I do not know any messianic that bother to drive or take a bus on Shabbat. I don't agree that non-jews should not keep Shabbat. I think that they are allowed and I don't have to agree with everything Judaism say. But, the hard point is to know what is allowable or not. I would guess that most Messianic light candles on Shabbat and, when we think about it, would break one commandment. That is, if you only believe in the Bible and not in the oral Torah. But most messianic (not all) won't bother to light a candle anyway and think it is totally fine. A thing that most Karaite Jew would not do. As for me, I don't keep Shabbat, even though I would. But I am my reasons why I cannot keep it right now.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Let me explain it nice and simple. David mentions in Psalms that he comes before God to pray "evening, morning, and afternoon". Next, the Sages established two daily prayers corresponding to the two daily sacrifices. These are the morning and afternoon prayers paralleling these two daily sacrifices, as it's written, "we'll pay bulls with our lips".

    That's the prayer issue. Now the sacrifice issue.

    Sacrifices worked by causing the person to pay something valuable to be consumed and taken up. It only worked AFTER the person repented. The Rambam explains in Mishne Torah, Hil. Teshuva that without sacrifices, charity atones because charity is something very similar to the effect of the sacrifices - giving up something of benefit to your livelihood. Also, after a person repents, depending on the kind of sin, a person can pay for his sin to be atoned via hardships that come upon him. The hardship of fasting on Yom Kipur and asking HaShem for forgiveness atones for many sins, but more serious ones will require other hardships to come upon a person during the course of the year, or depending on whenever HaShem decides to send them.

    You see, when you really understand the Torah, you see that the whole claim of who and what Yeshu is, is all a bunch of hogwash. Jews get forgiveness and atonement from God with or without sacrifices in the Temple.

    ReplyDelete
  17. OK, I get it now... We are not going to hell for not following God's commands, we are going to hell by not following the Rambam...Oh, well...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you're Jewish, you have to obey God's commandments because you are in an eternal covenant with Him. Simple as that. It doesn't mean if you sin once you're going to 'hell', that's what repentance is for.

      Also, the Rambam was a poseq halakha who simply determined the final halakha of the Gemara and wrote it down in a book of halakha. So it really has nothing to do with 'following the Rambam'. Maybe if you understood a few basic things about your faith, you wouldn't be a heretic and idolater.

      Delete
    2. Rambam, Halacha, gemara, where in the written Torah are they mentioned?

      Ignorance is bliss...

      Delete
    3. Jesus was not in the written Torah either...

      Ignorance is bliss...

      Delete
    4. What halacha book did Yeshua write?

      Delete
    5. Read the Rambam's introduction to Mishne Torah, he explains where the oral Torah is mentioned in the text of the Torah. Also, God commands us to heed the Court established by Moses in Devarim 17.

      Ancient Israelite kings, prophets, heads of the Courts, and others had written copies of what they were told over regarding the details of the Torah (halakha and agada). Their copies were much like what the Mishna is today. The Dead Sea scrolls contain things like this.

      Delete
  18. Dan, Jesus is not a proper sacrifice anyway, stop bowing to a man, it won't serve you any good. If a sacrifice is needed, then we are both in big trouble, a man dying on a cross is not a proper sacrifice and cannot atone for any sin...

    ReplyDelete
  19. Stop changing the subject like you always do and answer the question...sheeee...

    ReplyDelete
  20. The answer is No. But even if it would be yes, you would not be in a better position than the rest of us as I explain in my previous comment.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "We are not going to hell..."

    G-d does not send 99.9% of the population to Hell just because they don't know your messiah. First Hell is not even in the Tanakh...



    ReplyDelete
  22. The fact is, when Christians/Messianics are confronted with the reality that repentance along with the person's own payment according to the sin entirely atone a person's sins - they're done for. That's why they deny it and play ignorant when they're really not that stupid, just stubborn.

    When sacrifices were applicable, they atoned for the sin when the person also repented. Sacrifices atones because livestock was livelihood. Today, we can give money, charity, to atone for sins, as well as fast and do acts of [actual] mercy. When the sin is more serious, such as when it warrants 'kareth', then Yom Kipur which atones and always did atone, will be accompanied by hardships that HaShem places upon the person whenever they may come, resulting in complete atonement.

    No process of atonement comes until the person repents. If he remains in the sin without admitting wrong and attempting to change, it's likely nothing will be done for him towards the atonement of his sin.

    This sucks for worshipers of Yeshu, since they think they're all set no matter what they do, even though some of them stress anything from "being a good person", "loving people in general", or pseudo "Torah observance". They all agree: none of this does anything for them, since they're "covered in the blood", lol, which is really sick if you think about it.

    I'm waiting for people to grow a brain and stop blinding themselves by emotional attachment to the world's most well known mamzer. You can't be outrageously ignorant forever...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Any messianic, where in the Tanakh it says that Blood is needed for atonement? If it does not say that, maybe, maybe the writer of Hebrews is wrong... Use your noodles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Remi,

      Lev. 17:11

      Ignorance is bliss...

      Delete
    2. What did HaShem *give*, as He says there in the verse? He gave animal sacrifices, as if to say since you transgressed the Torah and acted like an animal and not a human (since acting human is acting in accordance with HaShem's will), we sacrifice the nefesh of the animal as if in place of our own. Nothing about human sacrifices, in fact, the opposite: don't kill yourself, kill an animal in your stead, something that costs you monetary value. This doesn't contradict what I said above at all. You're the ignorant one to insert human sacrifice into this.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Did HaShem violate His own Law and nature when he asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? Doesn't the very question put Abraham in an impossible position in your view? You see what became the written Torah is communal instruction. HaShem can command an individual (e.g. Abraham, Yeshua) without contradiction.

      Delete
  24. First Dan, have you ever read this Bible verse in context instead of only repeating your Christian Theology?

    And you should say to them: Any man of the House of Israel or of the strangers who will sojourn among them, who offers up a burnt offering or [any other] sacrifice, ח וַאֲלֵהֶם תֹּאמַר אִישׁ אִישׁ מִבֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִן הַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר יָגוּר בְּתוֹכָם אֲשֶׁר יַעֲלֶה עֹלָה אוֹ זָבַח:



    9but does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to make it [a sacrifice] to the Lord, that man shall be cut off from his people. טוְאֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא יְבִיאֶנּוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת אֹתוֹ לַיהוָֹה וְנִכְרַת הָאִישׁ הַהוּא מֵעַמָּיו:

    First, let's start with that one. You may be aware that Jesus was not offered as a sacrifice on the Tent of meeting. Not that Jesus was a sacrifice of any sort.


    10And any man of the House of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My attention upon the soul who eats the blood, and I will cut him off from among his people. יוְאִישׁ אִישׁ מִבֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִן הַגֵּר הַגָּר בְּתוֹכָם אֲשֶׁר יֹאכַל כָּל דָּם וְנָתַתִּי פָנַי בַּנֶּפֶשׁ הָאֹכֶלֶת אֶת הַדָּם וְהִכְרַתִּי אֹתָהּ מִקֶּרֶב עַמָּהּ:

    See here, it say that blood shall not be eaten, that is the purpose of the text. The intent of the writer is to explain why it should not be eaten, not to show that only blood can be offered.


    11For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have therefore given it to you [to be placed] upon the altar, to atone for your souls. For it is the blood that atones for the soul.

    Again, Jesus blood was not put on the altar (I know you will tell me that it was sprinkled in heaven, but seriously!)

    Finally, it does not say it is needed or the only way to atone sin...

    Ignorance is really a bliss my friend Dan!

    It only say that blood is use for atonement, but nowhere in the Tanakh it is say that blood is needed (mandatory, compulsory) for G-d to forgive sins.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, now God's word is Christian theology...You asked a question and I answered it... you got caught with your pants down and now you are pontificating... been there, done that...

      Delete
    2. There is a difference between "is needed" and "can be used" Dan. You can say "Don't use gas on your lawn mower because we use it for our car". Then, you will tell me "Gas is required for a car". But that does not make it true... You can have an electric car!

      And you can atone for sin with flour, "bring as an offering for their sin a tenth of an ephah of the finest flour for a sin offering", which would be the equivalent of the "electric car".

      Is flour always required for atonment Dan? If we follow your logic, it is...

      Fallacy:

      a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.


      Delete
    3. No difference...You are not " needed" here, and your warped theology cannot " be used" here... no difference...

      I did not even metioned Yeshua, I just exposed your ignorace... I will take God's words in Lev. 17:11 over your rambling any day of the week.

      Delete
    4. I am sorry Dan, you are not the owner of this blog... And you have one bible verse taking out of context to back your theory and allow you to worship a man. Furthermore, that Leviticus 17 talks about animal's blood, not human and no prophet ever mention that you must have faith in the blood of anybody. Why do you trust a god that cannot save Dan?

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. "You are not " needed" here"

      the day Peter asks me to leave, I shall definitively leave and never come back, but aren't blogs like that made for conversation. If you want everybody to agree with you, there is a nice place under the son that you should go, that is North Korea.

      Delete
    7. And why do you insist on answering question that were never been asked?

      You asked a question and I answer ed it. Idid not go out of context and you know it. So with egg all over your face instead of pulling your pants back up, you are giving us your old and tired song and dance...I tell you what, you want to discuss something else, then start a new topic, but don't try to pull the wool over our eyes...you are just a novice and we can see you ftom a mile...

      Delete
    8. Remi said:

      There is a difference between "is needed" and "can be used" Dan. You can say "Don't use gas on your lawn mower because we use it for our car". Then, you will tell me "Gas is required for a car". But that does not make it true... You can have an electric car!

      And you can atone for sin with flour, "bring as an offering for their sin a tenth of an ephah of the finest flour for a sin offering", which would be the equivalent of the "electric car".

      Is flour always required for atonment Dan? If we follow your logic, it is...


      Remi, your argument is invalid, while flour can be used, it is not a choice or preference. The Torah is clear, blood is required, God did not say you could bring flour instead of a blood sacrifice, that is bogus. The only reason flour is allowed, is for someone who cannot afford to bring a blood sacrifice, if you do not fit this category, then bringing a flour sacrifice is invalid, since flour is only an exception to the rule. With that said, even if a poor person can only afford to bring flour, they are still participating in the blood sacrifice which is required.

      Delete
    9. No Zion, flour is used without blood, thus saying blood is required is a lie and false.

      See:
      Blood is required for sin atonement.
      Floor can be used for sin atonement without blood.

      They cannot be both true. Or blood is always required and there is no exception, or blood is not always required and the writer of Hebrews is a liar.

      The burden of the proof is upon the writer of Hebrews, but in the Torah, which you consider Holy, there is one instance (at least) that blood is not required. Thus, which Book is a false? The new testament or the Torah?

      You choose, they cannot be both true.

      Delete
    10. Remi said: No Zion, flour is used without blood, thus saying blood is required is a lie and false.

      Flour is put on the altar where the blood has been sprinkled. This is what I was referencing, thus blood is still involved.

      But the greater argument here, is that flour is an exception to the rule. You are trying to build an entire doctrine off of an exception, which results in very bad interpretation.

      Blood is required for sin atonement.
      Floor can be used for sin atonement without blood.


      This statement is not correct, because it ignores the context and does not make a distinction between the rule and the exception. Flour cannot be used, unless a certain prerequisite is met, and unless it is met according to context, flour is invalid. Thus flour and blood are not on equal standing, or anyone should be able to use flour instead of blood, but that is not what the Torah says.

      They cannot be both true. Or blood is always required and there is no exception, or blood is not always required and the writer of Hebrews is a liar.

      In that case, the book of Leviticus is lying then as well. Which is where, the book of Hebrews derives the entire idea from. You seem to be misunderstanding the basic language here and in turn, flipping it on its head. The rule is very simple, "blood is required for atonement", that is the rule, then there is an exception to this rule, for only one category of people, a minority of people who cannot afford a blood sacrifice. The exception does not nullify the rule, how ridiculous, yet that is your argument. Instead the poor are partaking in the blood sacrifice, by having their fine flour put on the altar with the blood sacrifices, thus also taking part in the blood. Its not a hard concept at all.

      The burden of the proof is upon the writer of Hebrews, but in the Torah, which you consider Holy, there is one instance (at least) that blood is not required. Thus, which Book is a false? The new testament or the Torah?

      See above, there is no contradiction, exceptions to any given rule, does not nullify a rule.

      Let's try another example. Shabbat is to be set-apart, no work is to be done, however priest work on Shabbat and yet it is ok, it is called an exception, it does not mean any Israelite can work on Shabbat whenever they want. The rule is not to work, the exception is for a minority of people and it does not cancel the rule.

      Delete
    11. Yes Zion, if it says that blood is always needed, there cannot be any exception. I would also like to remind you of what kind of blood can be put on the altar. Animal's blood. Also, Jesus sacrifice was outside the camp and as Leviticus 17 said : "‘Whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice, 9 and does not bring it to the door of the tabernacle of meeting, to offer it to the Lord, that man shall be cut off from among his people." You whole "Jesus is our sacrifice" is nowhere to be found in the Hebrew Bible.

      I would suggest for you to stop reading Dr Brown... Ezekiel 18 boils is down, Jesus blood cannot be used for your sins and no atonement is needed for G-d to consider someone righteous.

      Delete
    12. You forgot to mention how Romans put Yeshua on the cross not Levite priests. I think we can all agree that Yeshua's death was not animal sacrifice.

      Delete
    13. Yes, I agree Jason, an awful death indeed, but not more redeeming for us than the thousand other crucifixion that were made by Romans soldiers or any bloody murder that was done under the son.

      Delete
    14. Yes Zion, if it says that blood is always needed, there cannot be any exception.

      Leviticus says that it is the blood that makes atonement, again the fact that there is exception, by means of flour put on a bloody altar, does not change this fact. If you are not willing to accept that fact, there is nothing else here to discuss. You can keep your fairy tale beliefs and I will simply accept what Leviticus says.

      I would also like to remind you of what kind of blood can be put on the altar. Animal's blood. Also, Jesus sacrifice was outside the camp and as Leviticus 17 said : "‘Whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice, 9 and does not bring it to the door of the tabernacle of meeting, to offer it to the Lord, that man shall be cut off from among his people." You whole "Jesus is our sacrifice" is nowhere to be found in the Hebrew Bible.

      I would suggest for you to stop reading Dr Brown... Ezekiel 18 boils is down, Jesus blood cannot be used for your sins and no atonement is needed for G-d to consider someone righteous.


      I never brought up any discussion about Jesus, because if you can't understand how atonement works and that blood is required for atonement, there is no point in discussing what Jesus did.

      Delete
    15. Your point was that Yeshua's death doesn't comply with Leviticsl animal sacrifice. No one argued that it did. Claiming that the crucifixion violates human sacrifice law is dubious for several reasons. Not sure if you're being sarcastic on that one.

      Delete
    16. Why would you trust Jesus Blood if it was not mandate by G-d? And why do you use Leviticus 17 to prove that blood is needed if it was animal blood used for the animal sacrifice? Sometimes you use the Law to prove Jesus, as in "These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken,", but for the rest you deny that Jesus sacrifice has anything to do with the Law. Do you use anything that is convenient for you?

      Delete
    17. You have nowhere to go so you insert Jesus into this debate, Remi... In Hebrew we call it RED HERRING... I suggest you stop readin rabbi Tuvia's warped arguments and start thinking for yourself... The discussion is about blood and flauer, not Jesus...

      Ignorance is bliss...

      Delete
  25. A. Michael wrote:
    "No process of atonement comes until the person repents."

    Glad you agree with the apostolic writings :) James 2:24:
    "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have to have faith in ONLY HaShem and faith that He alone atones for your sins. Then, you try to act in accordance with His will to the best of your ability. Faith does not mean faith in a man-god, but rather faith in HaShem alone.

      Delete
    2. How does HaShem atone for your sin?

      Delete
    3. I explained this here in this threat already, see above comments. It can all be proven in the Tanakh. I made a video a year and a half ago about this: http://youtu.be/8zC8JOc45SE

      Delete
    4. A. Michael, I agree. Messianic "Judaism" requires one to recognize a man as G-d and to pray through an intermediary. These are forms of idolatry and cannot be merged with G-d's Torah. www.kiruvnow.com

      Delete
    5. They absolutely can be merged and understood, while God is One, His nature is beyond ours. Much like how we understand the Holy Spirit in relation to God, without creating a dualistic nature or declaring God two, its not a hard concept to understand. No one in Messianic Judaism actually believes in multiple god's, Shema Israel, there is only One God.

      Delete
    6. Zion, isn't it the great mystery of Paul (1 Tim 3:16). So, The Jewish People who were mandate to worship only G-d and nobody else were tricked to believe G-d was one, when he had a mysterious plural unity. Over and over G-d warns not to do that, and the Jews will burn in Hell because they did not understand that mystery. The hidden things belong to G-d, but the things revealed belong to us. It was revealed that G-d is one and that there is no other gods beside him. There is only one saviour and only one rock. But, the Jews, because of the Hebrew Bible did not accept Jesus, and will suffer in Hell forever and ever because G-d said He is one and there is no Jesus besides him.

      Make sense!

      My ignorance is a bliss...

      Delete
    7. Zion, isn't it the great mystery of Paul (1 Tim 3:16). So, The Jewish People who were mandate to worship only G-d and nobody else were tricked to believe G-d was one, when he had a mysterious plural unity.

      Remove Yeshua from the equation for a moment and consider that Judaism has even struggled with the nature of God. Despite the Torah stating God is One, we have to deal for example, with how the nature of the Holy Spirit relates to God. Judaism will claim this is an attribute of God, but since the scriptures make a distinction between God and the Holy Spirit, we see that this relationship is not as simplistic as we think. Simply stating it is a attribute of God just helps us to feel better about trying to grasp God's nature and still maintain that He is One God, and there is no other. This is a better place to start your argument, but it won't help.

      Delete
    8. He is One God, and there is no other.

      And Jesus is by definition another if he speaks to G-d as someone else.

      Delete
    9. He is One God, and there is no other.

      Correct.

      And Jesus is by definition another if he speaks to G-d as someone else.

      Not correct. Unless you would like to claim that the Holy Spirit is a second god, thus staying consistent with your argument, since scripture makes a distinction between God and the Holy Spirit.

      With all this said, Remi, I am not here to convince you otherwise. You can believe whatever you like, that is the wonderful thing about free will.

      Delete
    10. Please use a verse that shows that the Spirit of G-d is not His Spirit, but a second person of G-d.

      Delete
    11. (I'm the same A. Michael, just sick of logging in and out of different accounts constantly)

      HaShem is one, there is no space for unity because where HaShem "is" is a place of infinity where there is no time, space, or matter, nor any plurality. We cannot understand HaShem's nature, at the source of who He is. To say that is a plural union is total BS and against the Shema`. This concept of a conceivable god that has different personas unified in some sort of oneness (i.e. parts to a whole) is pagan. The Sefiroth, lehavdil, are 10 ways in which we experience HaShem acting, they're each surrounded by hierarchy of HaShem's messengers and these 10 aspects of His actions manifest throughout creation. They're not entities in and of themselves, nor are they different parts to the One God who has no parts. Anyone who thinks of it like that automatically falls into heresy at the least. That's why Kabbalah isn't to be taught in any sort of depth to people who aren't grounded in the fundamentals of Torah.

      Delete
    12. Yes and following Christian Logic, god can be, the sun, the moon, the stars of heaven, Jesus, the wind, the golden calf and still be one. Prove me wrong if god is a complex unity.

      Delete
    13. God isn't anything that the human mind can comprehend. We can only comprehend how He interacts with creation. That's why we have different Names for Him that correspond to different ways in which He acts towards creation, all corresponding to the different Sefiroth.

      God Himself cannot be divided into anything, isn't a unity composed of parts, because He is above time, above space, and above matter since all of those three things are components of creation which He is not limited in.

      Delete
    14. Please use a verse that shows that the Spirit of G-d is not His Spirit, but a second person of G-d.

      I never said the Holy Spirit is not God's Spirit, I am talking about the distinction the scriptures make concerning God and the Holy Spirit.

      Take for example Isaiah 48:16
      “Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there.
      And now the Lord God has sent Me, and His Spirit.”

      As you can see the Lord God is distinct from His Spirit in this context. But this is not entirely a new concept, I am sure you have heard Elohim is plural, and while some of the verses using Elohim are followed by a singular, some are followed by a plural.

      Delete
    15. We cannot understand HaShem's nature, at the source of who He is.

      Then why are you even trying to explain it?

      Delete
    16. Simply put, because G-d is infinite, he sent Isaiah (not Jesus) and he was with him. He was sent by G-d and what Isaiah Said was inspired from G-d. I don't see any "second-person" or "third-person" in this sentence. Only the New-testament makes a distinction Between G-d and make another god of His Spirit...

      Delete
    17. Simply put, because G-d is infinite, he sent Isaiah (not Jesus) and he was with him. He was sent by G-d and what Isaiah Said was inspired from G-d. I don't see any "second-person" or "third-person" in this sentence. Only the New-testament makes a distinction Between G-d and make another god of His Spirit...

      Remi, just like the rest of our discussions, you have a very hard time understanding and seeing distinctions, this probably comes from a lack of education in grammar and literary devices or it is simply deliberate, so I am not exactly surprised that you cannot see the distinction here either. Oh well, maybe one day. :D

      Delete
    18. "this probably comes from a lack of education in grammar"

      Is that supposed to be an insult?

      Note that my first language is not English and my education in grammar is sufficient in English, French and Spanish. What it does not mean is that G-d sent a second god. What does that mean if you are so wise to tell me? And will your explanation be polytheist?

      Delete
    19. "Then why are you trying to explain it?" -Zion

      I'm explaining that you cannot understand infinity and the nature of HaShem. Get it? lol

      Delete
  26. Jason, your apostate writing are full of contradictions...

    "For it is by grace... NOT by works, lest any man should boast."

    "man is justified by works, and NOT by faith only"

    This is a contradiction. Follow the logic, if you are justified by A and not by B, then you cannot be justified by A and B.

    But you will reason and say "when we are saved, then we do good works" as anybody that is not a follower of Jesus cannot do a good work without any bad intent or desire for reward!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey remi,
      It would be great if you'd include verse references. Anyhow, here's the passage you quoted:

      “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

      [it continues...]
      For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”
      ‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭2:8-10‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

      The apostolic writings teach that G-d selects by grace and saves by works (Yeshua's), and then we receive justification by faith which must lead to works (ours).

      Both passages (Eph 2, Ja 2) support this view.

      Delete
  27. Dan, I give you an example of when blood is not needed for atonement, but you only say "it does not count".

    Here is another:

    Then Phinehas stood up and intervened,
    And the plague was stopped.
    31 And that was accounted to him for righteousness
    To all generations forevermore.

    So Phinehas was accounted righteous for what he has done. No blood needed. But again, you will tell me it does not count and you will want to say "Ignorance is a bliss", but you won't... Wait... now, you might because I say you won't, just so you win the argument.

    For conclusion, blood is not always needed, and we see that flour was used for atonement.

    Nowhere in scripture it said that blood is required all the time.

    People are declared righteous because of their actions.

    People are declared righteous without any Temple standing.

    Jesus blood is not needed.

    Jesus blood cannot provide atonement.

    You have no reason to believe the writer of Hebrews, more than it give you a to worship your another god and feel good about it, thinking you worship the L-rd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Remi,

      You reason that Yeshua's death cannot bring atonement because of the prohibition against human sacrifice, and also claim that atonement doesn't require blood.

      As proof you reference the bloody account of when Phinehas received generational atonement by running two humans through with a javelin (Num 25).

      You trolling us?

      Delete
  28. No Jason, I am not trolling you. There are tons of example that shows someone righteous without any blood sacrifice. This example, being one of them. Phinehas, was declared righteous because he trusted G-d and decided to kill the person that caused the plague on Israel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a difference between committing righteous acts, and atonement, you consistently make terrible arguments based on a lack distinction, there is a difference between rules and exceptions, there is a difference between atonement and righteousness, you should take time to actually learn what these terms mean and how they are used. As Jason questioned above, this is either trolling or willful ignorance.

      Delete
    2. No, Zion, righteousness is by what you do, based on your belief in HaShem. He gave us rules, whether you're among the people of Israel or a gentile. You have to do those actions, they're what define you as righteous.

      Charity in Hebrew is צדקה which means righteousness. This act atones for sin, as I explained several times here already. Why does it atone for sin like a sacrifice? Because a major atoning aspect of the sacrifices is the offering up of something very valuable. Livestock was livelihood. Giving money away to those who need it is essentially the same thing.

      Delete
    3. No, Zion, righteousness is by what you do, based on your belief in HaShem. He gave us rules, whether you're among the people of Israel or a gentile. You have to do those actions, they're what define you as righteous.

      Charity in Hebrew is צדקה which means righteousness. This act atones for sin, as I explained several times here already. Why does it atone for sin like a sacrifice? Because a major atoning aspect of the sacrifices is the offering up of something very valuable. Livestock was livelihood. Giving money away to those who need it is essentially the same thing.


      Your argument sounds nice in theory, but it does not deal with what the Torah actually says. Blood is required for atonement.

      Delete
    4. Yes it does, I proved these things from the Tanakh in the video.

      Delete
    5. Very weak argument, 'Zion', considering I can prove and have proven the Jewish practice and view on atonement from the Tanakh, whereas there is absolutely no evidence in Tanakh of God becoming a man to sacrifice himself to himself for a mistake he himself supposedly made. That's about as stupid and illogical as you can get. It's a joke anyone actually believes that.

      Delete
  29. Hi Peter,

    Thanks for your interesting thoughts!

    On our website, someone also once wrote an article about following the Rabbinic traditions: http://kehilanews.com/2015/12/25/does-yeshua-command-us-to-follow-the-traditions-of-the-rabbis/

    If you are interested, you can take a look at our website for more news from Israel, written with a Messianic perspective!

    www.kehilanews.com

    ReplyDelete