Without the shedding of blood????

[GerTzedek]

Either last shabbat or the shabbat before, I learned a very interesting fact at my messianic synagogue. The blood sacrifices offered in the Temple are only for the forgiveness of unintentional sins. A blood sacrifice will not gain atonement for intentional sins.

Why is this important to me? Because all of New Testament atonement theology is based on the idea that "without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sins."

Okay, so now I am confused. One of two things have got to be true. EITHER
A. intentional sins cannot be forgiven. so sorry. see you in hell.
OR
B. we have greatly misunderstood the verse about the shedding of blood.

I have to be honest. It looks to me from the context of the Hebrew scriptures that this verse is applying to the shedding of blood for unintentional sins. This verse does not seem to ever have been intended to apply to intentional sins.

AND
If that is true, then it would never have been necessary for the Messiah's blood to have been shed for the sake of intentional sins

AND If that is true, it would also follow that there is nothing about Yeshua's death that WOULD atone for intentional sins.

Help!

[mpossoff]

Ger let's look at it another way. Let's say that what you learned is true.

Is what you learned that the shedding of blood was for atonement or forgiveness? Because the two are different.

Because the blood of bulls and goats.....sanctified, covered but didn't remove sin; it atoned.

Yeshua's blood took away sin, not just covered it.

Marc

[GerTzedek]

Ger let's look at it another way. Let's say that what you learned is true.

Is what you learned that the shedding of blood was for atonement or forgiveness? Because the two are different.

Because the blood of bulls and goats.....sanctified, covered but didn't remove sin; it atoned.

Yeshua's blood took away sin, not just covered it.

Marc
Marc, the same word, "atonement" is the word we used for what Yeshua accomplished by his death.

[mpossoff]

13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Sanctify is not taking away sin or forgiving of sin. It's atonement which means you are covered.

However Messiah didn't sanctify His blood took away sin.

Make sense?

Marc

[mpossoff]

Marc, the same word, "atonement" is the word we used for what Yeshua accomplished by his death.

Is it possible that is the wrong word?

Marc

[mpossoff]

Ger this is the way I see it.

The sacrifices were never meant to take away sins. They wer e never meant to perfect men and women ,they were a means for sinful man to approach the Holy God.

Blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins.

The korbanot were never meant to take away sins in an eternal sense. They were always temporal in nature.

Cleansing of the flesh does not equal “taking away sins”.

Just some thoughts.

Marc

[GerTzedek]

Is it possible that is the wrong word?

Marc
If it's the wrong word, who made the mistake using it? Paul in Romans 3:25? The author of the epistle to the Hebrews in 2:17? Or Moses?

[mpossoff]

Marc, the same word, "atonement" is the word we used for what Yeshua accomplished by his death.

If it's the wrong word, who made the mistake using it? Paul in Romans 3:25? The author of the epistle to the Hebrews in 2:17? Or Moses?

I said it might be possible. Also it might be possible that I'm mixing it up too, lol.

What do you think of my thoughts in my previous post, ,make sense? Maybe we can dissect this together.

Marc

[GerTzedek]

To be my most very honest with you, Marc, it is giving me a cosmic headache. It very much looks to me like New Testament theology simply gets it wrong. I have never been the sort of person willing to force square pegs into round holes just so I can keep being right. I am not a happy camper. I feel like the ground is crumbling underneath me.

[ChazakEmunah]

Either last shabbat or the shabbat before, I learned a very interesting fact at my messianic synagogue. The blood sacrifices offered in the Temple are only for the forgiveness of unintentional sins. A blood sacrifice will not gain atonement for intentional sins.

Why is this important to me? Because all of New Testament atonement theology is based on the idea that "without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sins."

Okay, so now I am confused. One of two things have got to be true. EITHER
A. intentional sins cannot be forgiven. so sorry. see you in hell.
OR
B. we have greatly misunderstood the verse about the shedding of blood.

I have to be honest. It looks to me from the context of the Hebrew scriptures that this verse is applying to the shedding of blood for unintentional sins. This verse does not seem to ever have been intended to apply to intentional sins.

AND
If that is true, then it would never have been necessary for the Messiah's blood to have been shed for the sake of intentional sins

AND If that is true, it would also follow that there is nothing about Yeshua's death that WOULD atone for intentional sins.

Help!
I don't feel like launching into a massive debate right now (I may later ;) ), but you are now discovering what we Observant Jews know to be true. It was NEVER about blood. It was all about the heart.

True repentance can only take place when a person recognizes their error and seeks to correct it. No amount of sacrifice can atone for a person's sin if they continue in it. If a sacrifice were offered, but the person had not truly repented, then no kipur would have been provided.

A long time ago, after the destruction of the 1st Beit HaMikdash, HKB"H revealed something important to Hoshea haNavi. These concepts of kipur are preserved today in Judaism. They are: t'shuva (repentance and (re)turning towards Torah observance), tefillah (deep, intense prayer where one examines their deeds and asks for forgiveness), and tzedakah (good works).


In summation: Judaism teaches that kipur is only truly obtained by living a life in accordance with the Torah. Anything else is superfluous.

[mpossoff]

Ger I found these notes, let's look up these scriptures:

Cleansed of sins: Yes (Lev 16:16-30; Heb 9:13; 23).

Took away sin: No (Heb 10:4; 11)

Provided atonement: Yes (Lev 16:20; 33)

Made the people perfect: No (Heb 9:9; 10:1)

Cleansed the conscience: No (Heb 9:9; 10:2)

Yom Kippur made a way to ‘draw near’ to G-d: Yes. (Lev 16:17; 20; 33)

Sins never remembered by G-d: No (Heb 10:2-3)

Did Yom Kippur ‘work’? Yes. G-d’s Presence was in the Tabernacle/Temple – dwelling among them

Just some more food for thought.

Marc

[GerTzedek]

ChazakE:

I've always known that it was always about the heart. When David confessed to Nathan, they didn't make a quick trip to the Temple for David to make a sacrifice -- Nathan simply and immediately tells him that G-d has forgiven him.

BUT... I have believed that this WORKS because the death of Yeshua accomplished the perfect atonement, affecting everything both backwards and forewards in time.

NOW... I'm wondering why his death was necessary. I'm wondering IF his death was necessary.

I need to stop. This just really has me upset. I'm gonna just sit back and read what others write for a while.

[GerTzedek]

And all the verses that you quoted to which you attached YES were Hebrew scriptures. And all the verses to which you attached NO were from the book of Hebrews in the New Testament.

That wasn't very helpful! You are underscoring the idea that the New Testament is teaching something very different from the Old -- that it basically gets it's theology wrong. Either that, or the Hebrew scritpures are wrong, inwhich case we can just throw out the ENTIRE Bible, because Yeshua faith and the Chrsitian scriptures are built upon the foundation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

[GerTzedek]

Lurk mode [ ON ]

[mpossoff]

This any better?

Cleansed of sins: Yes (Lev 16:16-30; Heb 9:13; 23).

Took away sin: No

Provided atonement: Yes (Lev 16:20; 33)

Made the people perfect: No

Cleansed the conscience: No

Yom Kippur made a way to ‘draw near’ to G-d: Yes. (Lev 16:17; 20; 33)

Sins never remembered by G-d: No

Did Yom Kippur ‘work’? Yes. G-d’s Presence was in the Tabernacle/Temple – dwelling among them

Just some more food for thought.

Marc

[ChazakEmunah]

ChazakE:

I've always known that it was always about the heart. When David confessed to Nathan, they didn't make a quick trip to the Temple for David to make a sacrifice -- Nathan simply and immediately tells him that G-d has forgiven him.
Great, you're most of the way there already!


BUT... I have believed that this WORKS because the death of Yeshua accomplished the perfect atonement, affecting everything both backwards and forewards in time.

NOW... I'm wondering why his death was necessary. I'm wondering IF his death was necessary.
Here's the deal. I'm gonna give it to you straight. It is NOT necessary for anyone/anything to die in order to obtain kipur. All that is required is t'shuva. If this were not the case, then HaShem was mistaken when he revealed the requirements for kipur to Hoshea haNavi. And I certainly don't believe this to be the case.

[mpossoff]

Leviticus 17:10-12

10 " 'Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood—I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his 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. 12 Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood."

Atonement kaphar- to cover

Atonement appears to be not the same as forgiveness. Forgiveness of sin means you sins are wiped out so to speak where atonement appears to mean covered.

Marc

[GerTzedek]

Leviticus 17:10-12

10 " 'Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood—I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his 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. 12 Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood."

Atonement kaphar- to cover

Atonement appears to be not the same as forgiveness. Forgiveness of sin means you sins are wiped out so to speak where atonement appears to mean covered.

Marc
Marc:

Or... is "to cover" simply on of many metaphors for forgiveness?

[mpossoff]

Ger if you don't mind I would like to take this approach. With this approach we can see either they line up with the Torah or not.

Should we keep in mind the sacrifices never did what Yeshua did for us?

This is a quote...so is it against the Torah or not? Maybe use it like sort of a 'commentary'?


Hebrews 10 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Hebrews+10)
1 For the Law, since it has a shadow of the good things to come, not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.

This is a great verse. It clears it up. It cannot make a person Perfect. Neither were these sacrifices given to make a person Perfect... this was not there purpose.

Hebrews 10 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Hebrews+10)
2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins?

This is a great verse also, it is saying if these sacrifices made you perfect why would you continue to offer them.

Hebrews 10 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Hebrews+10)
3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year.

This verse is also showing that they are there to remind us of our sins.

Hebrews 10 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Hebrews+10)
4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

This shows that they could never take away sins unto perfection and was rightfully so was not there purpose as stated above. You will find most people think these verses are Derogatory as opposing scripture, but they are just lining up.

Marc

[mpossoff]

ChazakE:

I've always known that it was always about the heart. When David confessed to Nathan, they didn't make a quick trip to the Temple for David to make a sacrifice -- Nathan simply and immediately tells him that G-d has forgiven him.

BUT... I have believed that this WORKS because the death of Yeshua accomplished the perfect atonement, affecting everything both backwards and forewards in time.

NOW... I'm wondering why his death was necessary. I'm wondering IF his death was necessary.

I need to stop. This just really has me upset. I'm gonna just sit back and read what others write for a while.

Ger a question to ask in referance to David is: is there a sacrifice for intentional sin? I don't think there is. Only by His grace and mercy and long suffering can we be forgiven for sinning intentionally.

Marc

[stone]

Thank g-d i don't have to rely on man's theology!

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

[GerTzedek]

Ger a question to ask in referance to David is: is there a sacrifice for intentional sin? I don't think there is. Only by His grace and mercy and long suffering can we be forgiven for sinning intentionally.

Marc
Yeah, Marc, that is what I am concluding also. The problem with that is, though, that it completely decimates the need for Yeshua's death. The whole argument that the New Testament authors give for the crucifixion is based on a false premise and is therefore entirely falacious. He cannot be the perfect sin offering for all sins if there never was a sin offering for all sins. There is no extension. There is no analogy.

I don't know what to do with this information. I feel utterly betrayed.

[stone]

Either last shabbat or the shabbat before, I learned a very interesting fact at my messianic synagogue. The blood sacrifices offered in the Temple are only for the forgiveness of unintentional sins. A blood sacrifice will not gain atonement for intentional sins.

Why is this important to me? Because all of New Testament atonement theology is based on the idea that "without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sins."

Okay, so now I am confused. One of two things have got to be true. EITHER
A. intentional sins cannot be forgiven. so sorry. see you in hell.
OR
B. we have greatly misunderstood the verse about the shedding of blood.

I have to be honest. It looks to me from the context of the Hebrew scriptures that this verse is applying to the shedding of blood for unintentional sins. This verse does not seem to ever have been intended to apply to intentional sins.

AND
If that is true, then it would never have been necessary for the Messiah's blood to have been shed for the sake of intentional sins

AND If that is true, it would also follow that there is nothing about Yeshua's death that WOULD atone for intentional sins.

Help!

scripture

[stone]

i was reading something about a virgin wife to be, and that if her jewels of viriginty were not found that the father had to pay a fine and something else....??

that would mean a sin is found somewhere right, and how else is this intentional sin compensated for?

[ChavaK]

Either last shabbat or the shabbat before, I learned a very interesting fact at my messianic synagogue. The blood sacrifices offered in the Temple are only for the forgiveness of unintentional sins. A blood sacrifice will not gain atonement for intentional sins.

While I cannot address the issue of what messianics
believe about blood sacrifices/unintentional sins,
nor what your congregation teaches, I will say that
this is indeed what Judaism holds by....

[mpossoff]

Yeah, Marc, that is what I am concluding also. The problem with that is, though, that it completely decimates the need for Yeshua's death. The whole argument that the New Testament authors give for the crucifixion is based on a false premise and is therefore entirely falacious. He cannot be the perfect sin offering for all sins if there never was a sin offering for all sins. There is no extension. There is no analogy.

I don't know what to do with this information. I feel utterly betrayed.

Are we not sinful otherwise besides intentional sins. Thank God He doesn't keep a record of my sin that I don't even know about and the ones that creep up.

As an example: Lashon hara. I may not speak 'evil' about someone. But the thought of speaking evil is equated with the action of speaking evil.

Look at the Sermon on the Mount. Hmmm... adultery. I may not comitt the act of adultery but I certaintly have lusted after a woman and still do. Isn't that the same as committed the very act of adultery.

How about murder? I may have not committed the act of murder but I have and still do murder someone with my mind.

The point is we have unintentional sins that just pop up because of our nature.

Because of this we are still considered sinful man before God.

Paul explains it better than myself.

21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good.
22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

I will admit that as long as I'm in this body and world sin is still present in me.

The way sin was dealt with according to Hebrews it didn't make one perfect.

With Yeshua who is the son of God we are perfect. But just because we are now perfect doesn't mean that's the end.

Marc

[Steve Petersen]

http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/kafar%20study.mell.pdf

[stone]

I recall someone saying that they don't debate with links and neither will i.

here's a hint, when is the last time someone was stoned to death and then why is g-d choosing not to enforce this death sentence any longer? It's been about 1900 hundred years right, surely if it was g-ds will it would continue, and if it were not he would let us know, which through my eyes he has let us know why and did let us know many other things that have ceased to exist here on earth. Some choose not to believe, that's the difference between alot of us here.

[ChazakEmunah]

here's a hint, when is the last time someone was stoned to death and then why is g-d choosing not to enforce this death sentence any longer?
The death penalty cannot be enforced without the Beit Din HaGadol sitting in their court on Har HaBayit. They also cannot act without the Beit HaMikdash standing.


It's been about 1900 hundred years right
Nope, it's been longer. The Beit Din HaGadol left their seats on Har HaBayit long before the Beit HaMikdash was destroyed and immediately stopped enforcing the death penalty.


surely if it was g-ds will it would continue, and if it were not he would let us know, which through my eyes he has let us know why and did let us know many other things that have ceased to exist here on earth. Some choose not to believe, that's the difference between alot of us here.
I'm curious. Do you believe that the Beit HaMikdash will not be rebuilt?

[ChavaK]

The death penalty cannot be enforced without the Beit Din HaGadol sitting in their court on Har HaBayit. They also cannot act without the Beit HaMikdash standing.


When the death penalty was enforcable, it was so
seldom used as to be almost non-existent......

[ChazakEmunah]

When the death penalty was enforcable, it was so
seldom used as to be almost non-existent......
Yep. Thanks for clarifying that point Chava!

[stone]

That's not really a good thing, is it? To disobey g-d?

[ChazakEmunah]

That's not really a good thing, is it? To disobey g-d?
No, we're not saying that. We're just trying to demonstrate that the death penalty was only given in extremely rare cases. Judaism places a high value upon the life of a person, so these decisions were not reached easily.

[HaNotsri]

If the Sanhedrin enacted the death penalty even once in a seventy year period, it was considered a "bloody" court

[MyZz]

I would like to show why I disagree that there is no sacrifice for intentional sin in the Tanak.

In Leviticus 5 verses 20 to 26 we read
20 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:
21 If any one sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and deal falsely with his neighbour in a matter of deposit, or of pledge, or of robbery, or have oppressed his neighbour
22 or have found that which was lost, and deal falsely therein, and swear to a lie; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein;
23 then it shall be, if he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took by robbery, or the thing which he hath gotten by oppression, or the deposit which was deposited with him, or the lost thing which he found,
24 or any thing about which he hath sworn falsely, he shall even restore it in full, and shall add the fifth part more thereto; unto him to whom it appertaineth shall he give it, in the day of his being guilty.
25 And he shall bring his forfeit unto the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to thy valuation, for a guilt-offering, unto the priest.
26 And the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD, and he shall be forgiven, concerning whatsoever he doeth so as to be guilty thereby.


Clearly all the above sins are intentional and I'm not the only one who thinks so. according to jewish commentator Baruch Levine
The offenses outlined here were quite definitely intentional! A person misappropriated property or funds entrusted to his safekeeping, or defrauded another, or failed to restore lost property he had located....If, subsequently, the accused came forth on his own and admitted to having lied under oath - thus assuming liability for the unrecovered property - he was given the opportunity to clear himself by making restitution and by paying a fine of 20 percent to the aggrieved party. Having lied under oath, he had also offended God and was obliged to offer an 'asham sacrifice in expiation....God accepts the expiation even of one who swears falsely in His name because the guilty person is willing to make restitution to the victim of his crime.


Let us also turn to Leviticus 16
16 And he shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleannesses of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, even all their sins; and so shall he do for the tent of meeting, that dwelleth with them in the midst of their uncleannesses.
17 And there shall be no man in the tent of meeting when he goeth in to make atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the assembly of Israel.
18 And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the LORD, and make atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about.
19 And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleannesses of the children of Israel
20 And when he hath made an end of atoning for the holy place, and the tent of meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live goat.
21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of an appointed man into the wilderness.
22 And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land which is cut off; and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

We see it says all their iniquities, transgressions and all their sins.

Interestingly the Talmud supports this idea of that day of atonement providing atonement to all sorts of sins,both intentional and non intentional. They also seem to have attributed atoning powers to the sacrifices that didn’t appear to have any atoning power,such as the burnt-offering and the peace-offering. Isnt that interesting?

And isn’t it interesting what Maimonedes has to say on the day of atonement

[i]Since the goat sent to Asazielatones for all of Israel, the High Priest confesses on it as the spokesman for all of Israel, as [Lev. 16:21] states: "He shall confess on it all the sins of the Children of Israel."

The goat sent to Azazeil atones for all the transgressions in the Torah, the severe and the lighter [sins]; those violated intentionally and those transgressed inadvertently; those which [the transgressor] became conscious of and those which he was not conscious of All are atone for by the goat sent [to Azaziel.

This applies only if one repents. If one does not repent, the goat only atones for the light [sins].

Which are light sins and which are severe ones? Severe sins are those which are punishable by execution by the court or by premature death [karet]. [The violation of] the other prohibitions that are not punishable by premature death are considered light [sins].

[TheRabbi]

Clearly all the above sins are intentional and I'm not the only one who thinks so. according to jewish commentator Baruch Levine
No, it's not clearly intentional. It's not intentional at all. People can unintentionally defraud and unintentional steal. There is an entire section of the talmud that deals with these issues. A man can, in his ignorance assume that something he finds is hefker/ownerless, when in fact it is not. When he learns that the item is not hefker, he immediately becomes guilty and must make restitution and bring a sacrifice. This is why the verse says "and he shall bring it in the day of his being guilty".

I would add to Ger's statement that not only were the sacrifices for unintentional sins, they were only for unintentional sins that were witnessed by 2 kosher witnesses. Sin sacrifices for an individual were very, very, rare.

[TheRabbi]

Okay, so now I am confused. One of two things have got to be true. EITHER
A. intentional sins cannot be forgiven. so sorry. see you in hell.
OR
B. we have greatly misunderstood the verse about the shedding of blood.
You see, this is the problem. You are building new theology based on incomplete thinking. There is an option C. C) The new testament reference in question is a false statement that contradicts the word of God.

If there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood, then how do we explain David's confession over the sin against Bathsheba's husband and Nathan's reply of "The Lord has already forgiven you"? How do we explain Solon's detailed descriptions of the Lord forgiving sin by turning toward Jerusalem with nothing but a broken heart (even when there is no temple)?

[Steve Petersen]

The blood thing seems to have more to do with the sanctity of the Tabernacle/Temple than with forgiveness from God.

If a person wasn't in a state of ritual purity when they came to the Temple and didn't bring the proper 'covering' one gets the impression that the Holy Place became contaminated in some spiritual sense.

Sacrifices are called 'korbanot' and have the sense of 'bringing near' (to God?). Question is, what is being brought near, the sacrifice or the offerer?

[simchat_torah]

A. intentional sins cannot be forgiven. so sorry. see you in hell.

Wait, the Tenach details that hell exists???

A. intentional sins cannot be forgiven. so sorry. see you in hell.
Or C) G-d forgives those who repent?

[visionary]

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. Maybe we are looking at it from the wrong angle, maybe we should be seeing it from the purging aspect. Purging...cleansing.Eze 43:23 Then thou hast made an end of cleansing it, thou shalt offer a young bullock without blemish, and a ram out of the flock without blemish.

[GerTzedek]

You see, this is the problem. You are building new theology based on incomplete thinking. There is an option C. C) The new testament reference in question is a false statement that contradicts the word of God.

If there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood, then how do we explain David's confession over the sin against Bathsheba's husband and Nathan's reply of "The Lord has already forgiven you"? How do we explain Solon's detailed descriptions of the Lord forgiving sin by turning toward Jerusalem with nothing but a broken heart (even when there is no temple)?
Your option C is my option B.


BTW, Rabbi, a Cohen friend of mine referred me to this passage in Leviticus 6

1 The LORD said to Moses: 2 "If anyone sins and is unfaithful to the LORD by deceiving his neighbor about something entrusted to him or left in his care or stolen, or if he cheats him, 3 or if he finds lost property and lies about it, or if he swears falsely, or if he commits any such sin that people may do- 4 when he thus sins and becomes guilty, he must return what he has stolen or taken by extortion, or what was entrusted to him, or the lost property he found, 5 or whatever it was he swore falsely about. He must make restitution in full, add a fifth of the value to it and give it all to the owner on the day he presents his guilt offering. 6 And as a penalty he must bring to the priest, that is, to the LORD, his guilt offering, a ram from the flock, one without defect and of the proper value. 7 In this way the priest will make atonement for him before the LORD, and he will be forgiven for any of these things he did that made him guilty."

It is seem that this blood sacrifice in this passage was for intentional sins. What say you to this?

[GerTzedek]

Thank g-d i don't have to rely on man's theology!

All interpretations of scripture are man's theology. It is self-deception for anyone to think they are bible-only. You have your own interpretations. You listen to and adopt the interpretations of others - quite a few of them. However, I certainly understand that you are not aware of it.

[Bananna]

Either last shabbat or the shabbat before, I learned a very interesting fact at my messianic synagogue. The blood sacrifices offered in the Temple are only for the forgiveness of unintentional sins. A blood sacrifice will not gain atonement for intentional sins.

Why is this important to me? Because all of New Testament atonement theology is based on the idea that "without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sins."

Okay, so now I am confused. One of two things have got to be true. EITHER
A. intentional sins cannot be forgiven. so sorry. see you in hell.
OR
B. we have greatly misunderstood the verse about the shedding of blood.

I have to be honest. It looks to me from the context of the Hebrew scriptures that this verse is applying to the shedding of blood for unintentional sins. This verse does not seem to ever have been intended to apply to intentional sins.

AND
If that is true, then it would never have been necessary for the Messiah's blood to have been shed for the sake of intentional sins

AND If that is true, it would also follow that there is nothing about Yeshua's death that WOULD atone for intentional sins.

Help!
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

1Cr 11:25 After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.

Hbr 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].

Hbr 10:4 For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Hbr 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
Hbr 13:13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.
Hbr 13:14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.

Isa 53:10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
whole chapter (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/Isa053.html#6)

One must understand The Life is in the blood. The symbolic taking of Yeshua's blood is infusing us with the life of God literally.

I don't like the new idea of "God's Blood" as one author coined it. God has no blood imo. The spirit Life is carried in the blood of the righteous children of God. In a small sence the Godly person who is martyred is a shadow of what Yeshua did for the whole world by becoming totally infused with the Father of Life.

No amount of sacrificing animals can cover intentional sin. The only way to remove it is to be under righteous teaching and accept that God provided the One Chosen/ the Meshiach whose walk was so righteous even unto death for the sake of the people.

blessings
bananna

[GerTzedek]

Thanks banana, But see, here is the circular reasoning.

The Christian scriptures make an ARGUMENT by analogy that Yeshua was the lamb of G-d, the perfect sacrifice. They weren't meant to be used as proof texts. They were designed to persuade. Only they aren't persuasive because the argument is flawed.

Isaiah 53 is yet ANOTHER example of Hebrew Scritpures being sited as being about Yeshua when in fact they are about ISRAEL. The misquoting drives me NUTS.

Christians start with the theology, and then reads it back into the scriptures. They take flawed written works which promoted their teachings, and gave those works the status of canon, when they were never written in that didactic manner at all. It becomes circular.

[Bananna]

In your opinion it may sound nuts,

But you missed the point of how the righteous Soul is the key to the life of the blood. It was the obedience of the Chosen one who God could dwell in fully.

Isaiah is just one reference, Even the Sages tell how the death of the righteous bears away the sins of their generation. The difference in Yeshua is that He actually was able to bare away the sins of all generation, not just his own generation as the Chosen One.

Yeshua showed that the Father accepted him by raising Even Eliazar from the dead after four days.

Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Future tense "will be saved.

[TheRabbi]

BTW, Rabbi, a Cohen friend of mine referred me to this passage in Leviticus 6

1 The LORD said to Moses: 2 "If anyone sins and is unfaithful to the LORD by deceiving his neighbor about something entrusted to him or left in his care or stolen, or if he cheats him, 3 or if he finds lost property and lies about it, or if he swears falsely, or if he commits any such sin that people may do- 4 when he thus sins and becomes guilty, he must return what he has stolen or taken by extortion, or what was entrusted to him, or the lost property he found, 5 or whatever it was he swore falsely about. He must make restitution in full, add a fifth of the value to it and give it all to the owner on the day he presents his guilt offering. 6 And as a penalty he must bring to the priest, that is, to the LORD, his guilt offering, a ram from the flock, one without defect and of the proper value. 7 In this way the priest will make atonement for him before the LORD, and he will be forgiven for any of these things he did that made him guilty."

It is seem that this blood sacrifice in this passage was for intentional sins. What say you to this?
I say that your friend sgould do a bit more learning. Ger, I already dealt with this ealier in the thread. All of the above are unintentional. Just as one may kill unintentionally, he may steal or defraud unintentionally. There is an entire tractate of the Talmud devoted to such occurences. Let's say a man finds an item and believes it to be hefker/ownerless. He later learns that it is not hefker. By the Torah he has stolen and when he becomes aware of it he takes on the status of guilty. If a man gives testimony to what he thought he saw, but he turns out to be wrong, even though he only reported what he thought he saw, if it turns out to be wrong, he's still guilty of false witness.

[ContraMundum]

I don't feel like launching into a massive debate right now (I may later ;) ), but you are now discovering what we Observant Jews know to be true. It was NEVER about blood. It was all about the heart.

Then why kill animals at all? Clearly God had a purpose behind the killing of innocent animals.

Answer: traditional Christianity teaches that Christ's sacrifice is eternal- meaning that the animal sacrifices were a kind of sacramental way of receiving forgiveness for unintentional sins, while repentance and faith made one accounted righteous before God- also because of the eternal nature of the atonement.

eg. the sacrifice of Yeshua is the effective salvific agent for all sacrifices throughout scripture, even when hidden from our eyes, in every Covenant.

In summation: Judaism teaches that kipur is only truly obtained by living a life in accordance with the Torah. Anything else is superfluous.

Likewise, Christianity teaches that one is accounted righteous by faith- which without works is dead and without repentance is nullified. Same doctrine.

[Steve Petersen]

Isaiah 53 is yet ANOTHER example of Hebrew Scritpures being sited as being about Yeshua when in fact they are about ISRAEL. The misquoting drives me NUTS.

Mid. Konen specifically cites Isaiah 53:5 as a reference to the Messiah. Speaking of Paradise it says:

'Elijah of blessed memory takes hold of his [Messiah ben David's] head, and places it in his lap and holds it, and says to him: "Endure the sufferings and sentence of your Master who makes you suffer because of the sin of Israel." And thus it is written: He was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities (Isa. 53:5) - until the time when the end comes.'

So, apparently it isn't only Christians misquoting. :cool:

[GerTzedek]

I say that your friend sgould do a bit more learning. Ger, I already dealt with this ealier in the thread. All of the above are unintentional. Just as one may kill unintentionally, he may steal or defraud unintentionally. There is an entire tractate of the Talmud devoted to such occurences. Let's say a man finds an item and believes it to be hefker/ownerless. He later learns that it is not hefker. By the Torah he has stolen and when he becomes aware of it he takes on the status of guilty. If a man gives testimony to what he thought he saw, but he turns out to be wrong, even though he only reported what he thought he saw, if it turns out to be wrong, he's still guilty of false witness.
Thank you.

[Steve Petersen]

eg. the sacrifice of Yeshua is the effective salvific agent for all sacrifices throughout scripture, even when hidden from our eyes, in every Covenant.


Sort of like filling the bank account we draw upon when we repent!:thumbsup:

[ContraMundum]

Steve- I keep getting that "you must spread more rep" around message when I read your stuff.

You've got a way with words my friend.

:)

[mpossoff]

You see, this is the problem. You are building new theology based on incomplete thinking. There is an option C. C) The new testament reference in question is a false statement that contradicts the word of God.

If there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood, then how do we explain David's confession over the sin against Bathsheba's husband and Nathan's reply of "The Lord has already forgiven you"? How do we explain Solon's detailed descriptions of the Lord forgiving sin by turning toward Jerusalem with nothing but a broken heart (even when there is no temple)?

Rabbi I think you are missing the point.

1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.

11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,

The fact is the sacrifices didn't take away sins . There was a reminder of sins every year.

I have searched in Leviticus and I can' find anything that the sacrifices take away sin. They are a means of approaching God or else you would be struck down.

This is not negating the sacrifices by any means. This doesn't mean because I believe in Yeshua I can now enter the Holy of Holies. The sacrifices were never meant to take away sins. The sacrifices made you 'clean' when approaching God but never took away sin as they weren't suppose to take away sin.

Yes those who believe in Yeshua are inputed with righteousness and can enter the Holy of Holies. But that doesn't mean that the sacrifices would cease if there was a Temple present today because the sacrifices work in sanctifying the flesh. As their purpose is to not to take away sin.

Marc

[TheRabbi]

Good, then you agree that the statement "Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins" is a falsehood and a misrepresentation of the Israelite faith.

[TheRabbi]

Mid. Konen specifically cites Isaiah 53:5 as a reference to the Messiah. Speaking of Paradise it says:

'Elijah of blessed memory takes hold of his [Messiah ben David's] head, and places it in his lap and holds it, and says to him: "Endure the sufferings and sentence of your Master who makes you suffer because of the sin of Israel." And thus it is written: He was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities (Isa. 53:5) - until the time when the end comes.'

So, apparently it isn't only Christians misquoting. :cool:
I say it's about the Messiah.

[ContraMundum]

"The Rabbi"- Marc is differentiating between imputed righteousness (forgiveness of sins) and sanctification (cleansing of sins, holiness etc- and not merely ceremonial holiness). He is not disagreeing with the NT, but rather pointing out how he understands it to be in harmony with the Torah.

Try to respect that. Christians are not that dumb, nor were the authors of the NT.

[Steve Petersen]

Steve- I keep getting that "you must spread more rep" around message when I read your stuff.

You've got a way with words my friend.

:)

^_^ I am having the same problem when I read yours!

[Steve Petersen]

I say it's about the Messiah.

How about both? Messiah as a typification of Israel? or the ideal Israelite?

[stone]

closing for staff review