|
|
Post by inthewind on Aug 29, 2006 6:48:56 GMT -8
I have come accross so many views and scriptures that I was wondering if some could shed some light on this topic(s). In reviewing the threads on sacrifice and the  for the various types of sacrifices, it is apparent that a blood sacrifices is not necessary to atone for sin. Why then did Messiah have to die and is the equating of His blood to sin, in the NT, a valid teaching? While sunstitutionary death is implied in , it doesnot seem to be required? Is His death the atonement for intentional sin? Intentional sin was punished by death in the OT. Was this also spiritual death; i.e. banished from eternal life? If so are we dealt a better hand than the OT intentional sinner? Wheeeew. Should this be separate questions/threads? My lenses are getting fogged, and looking for some clarity.  |
|
|
|
Post by Nachshon on Aug 29, 2006 13:05:29 GMT -8
I think we shouldn't look at each sacrifice individually, but each as being merely a part of the whole. Mashiach fulfilled every sacrifice, not merely some of them. So, in the end, which is a picture of which? The sacrifices in are a picture of Mashiach, are they not? So each one is merely showing a part of Yeshua's sacrifice. I would say that, yes, blood is a requirement for atonement, when we look at it this way. As to intentional sin...I think intentional sin is really difficult to define. I do not believe, though, that the punishment for intentional sin always had to be eternal. Shalom, David |
|
Pioneer
Full Member
Shema and Shemar
Posts: 210
|
Post by Pioneer on Aug 29, 2006 21:40:42 GMT -8
I think we shouldn't look at each sacrifice individually, but each as being merely a part of the whole. Mashiach fulfilled every sacrifice, not merely some of them. So, in the end, which is a picture of which? The sacrifices in are a picture of Mashiach, are they not? So each one is merely showing a part of Yeshua's sacrifice. I would say that, yes, blood is a requirement for atonement, when we look at it this way. As to intentional sin...I think intentional sin is really difficult to define. I do not believe, though, that the punishment for intentional sin always had to be eternal. Shalom, David When the High Preist was sanctified it was by the blood of the sacrifice. Yeshua's Priesthood was sanctified by his own blood. T o create a whole doctrine on all sacrifices makes all the scarifices made before the destruction of the temple profane, including Pauls. Yeshua has been sanctified as Priest once and for all. The Christian teaching has caught on without any verification in the Tanack, therefore completely bogus. Shalom |
|
|
|
Post by inthewind on Aug 30, 2006 5:02:50 GMT -8
Numbers 15:30-31
But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is born in the land, or a stranger, that person YHWH; and that person shall be cut off from among his people.
Because he has despised the word of YHWH, and has broken His commandment, that person shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.
Leviticus 5:11-13
But if he is not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he who sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, nor shall he put any frankincense on it; for it is a sin offering.
Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, a memorial part of it, and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire to YHWH; it is a sin offering.
Exod 21:30
The owner of an ox that killed a person after the owner had received warning that the animal was dangerous, was charged with the death of a person; but because his crime was not intentional, he was permitted to pay a 'ransom'.
Whle it is a complicated issue, these verses would indicate that a blood sacrifice was not required. Also it would indicate that repentance and restitutions were the foundations for forgiveness?
And, the day of atonement does specifiy a bllod offering, but also an offering that was let go into the wilderness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nachshon on Aug 30, 2006 5:30:17 GMT -8
I'm sorry, Pioneer, I'm not certain I grasp your meaning.
|
|
Pioneer
Full Member
Shema and Shemar
Posts: 210
|
Post by Pioneer on Aug 30, 2006 19:28:14 GMT -8
I'm sorry, Pioneer, I'm not certain I grasp your meaning. Christians teach that all sacrifices were ended with the sacrifice of Jesus, once for all! The Tanack plainly states that the sacrifices will be done when the Temple is rebuilt. Paul clearly sacrificed after Yeshuas resurrection! Will they be profane? was Pauls sacrifices profane? Don't you think there is some other meaning? If not we all should have remained Christian! So think about it. |
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Aug 30, 2006 22:55:29 GMT -8
Blood sacrifice is necessary. And, this is one of the very important reasons for Messiah's sacrifice. But, for two different priesthoods there are two different atonements being made. The Levitical priesthood will operate once again in harmony with the future Davidic King. I believe we are getting on to the same subject that already exists in another thread. If we end up having the same exact discussion here we may need to shut down this thread. If you would like to continue the discussion dealing with the temple and it's priesthood, please continue there.
Shalom chaverim,
Reuel
|
|
|
|
Post by inthewind on Aug 31, 2006 4:32:29 GMT -8
I understand this and am not questioning the temple or the sacrifices which are to be continued.
I am specifically looking for clarification on the use of the sacrifice in pre Messiah days and how it relates to Messiah. If a blood sacrifice was required for all atonement then what is the meaning of:
Leviticus 5:11-13
But if he is not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he who sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, nor shall he put any frankincense on it; for it is a sin offering.
If this is to be taken on face value, it would "appear" that here was more to the death of Messiah than atonement for sin?
Now, I am not questioning the priesthood of Yeshua, but, want to reconcile, scripturally, what it specifically means.
If I say that the death if Yeshua was required to satisfy the blood atonement for sin, and someone throws this verse out, I don't want to stand there with my mouth open without a scriptural answer.
Is this just a provision for the poor and was counted as a blood sacrifice?
Or, offering vs atonement?
|
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Sept 1, 2006 23:06:30 GMT -8
"According to the , nearly everything is cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission." - Heb. 9:22 Ideally, with a sin offering it requires the shedding of blood, as this seems to be the model that most clearly communicates the seriousness of sin. Although, in Adonai's infinite mercy (blessed be He) the Almighty One shows chen v'chesed (grace and mercy) to those both great and small, poor and rich, and always makes a way for atonement and remission. But, note that Yom Kippur overshadows all of these events that take place throughout the year. When it comes to Yom Kippur\Day Of Atonement (in which we see much of the language in the Book of Hebrews alluding to), you will not see the allowance of "fine flour" to take the place of this sin offering...Something ideal is required for the atonement of sins. And, the true power (to the cleansing of the conscience/spirit/soul) behind the remission of sins is in the sacrificial blood of Mashiach (Messiah). Effectively, it is the power behind any and all sacrifice (Heb.13:15), and always has been. But, without the shedding of blood all these other sacrifices...even the ones not requiring blood would have no power to effectively atone. Mashiach's sacrifice from the very beginning has been the driving force behind atonement. Shalom chaverim, Reuel |
|
|
|
Post by inthewind on Sept 4, 2006 11:54:17 GMT -8
Thank you.
So in essence, all these, blood or no blood, were a forward view of the atonement from Massiach's blood sacrifice, which is the only one that truly atoned and freed past, present, asnd future, sinners.
|
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Sept 4, 2006 13:49:40 GMT -8
Amein!  |
|
Pioneer
Full Member
Shema and Shemar
Posts: 210
|
Post by Pioneer on Sept 4, 2006 17:11:32 GMT -8
Thank you. So in essence, all these, blood or no blood, were a forward view of the atonement from Massiach's blood sacrifice, which is the only one that truly atoned and freed past, present, asnd future, sinners. Be very careful not to think that it paid for your future willful sin. Heb. 10:26 (some Christian thinking) Shalom |
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Sept 4, 2006 23:58:13 GMT -8
Good point. We should not willfully treat the sacrifice of our Master in a disrespectful way (i.e. using it as an excuse to sin).
Shalom chaver,
Reuel
|
|
|
|
Post by Blake on Sept 14, 2006 16:09:17 GMT -8
Human sacrifice is abhorred throughout the scriptures and the Children of Yisra'El are reminded over and over again not to offer their children as the Canaanite Pagans did in the land they were to conquer and inhabit. If Ribi Y'hoshua ben Yosef ben Dawid's death atoned for all mankind's sins wouldn't that violate the very command that was given? I think this is a misunderstanding of his sacrifice.
Animal sacrifices, AND Y'hoshua's sacrifice were merely the tavnit, not ther actual vehicle of kipur.
There were times the B'nai Yisra'El were without a temple, and other times such as during Herod's temple when the priesthood was so corrupt that it was impossible for them to fulfill the mitzwah to provide an ublemished sacrifice. Were all during these times barred from ha-olam ha-ba? Ofcourse not!
Remember the teaching of Mashiakh,
Go and learn what this means, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.’ -Matityahu 9:13
Quoting the Hoshea Ha-Navi Y'hoshua also gives the Hillellian "Go and learn".
Yochanon Ben Zakkai must've been one of the Perushim present here (or taught by one of them) because did learn what that verse meant and because he did Phariseeism did not die out like Sadduceeism and we still have Judaism till this day.
""Once, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai was walking with his disciple, Rabbi Yehoshua, near Jerusalem after the destruction of the Temple. Rabbi Y'hoshua looked at the Temple ruins and said "Alas for us!! The place that atoned for the sins of the people Israel lies in ruins!" Then Rabbi Yohannan ben Zakkai spoke to him these words of comfort: "Be not grieved, my son. There is another equally meritorious way of gaining ritual atonement, even though the Temple is destroyed. We can still gain ritual atonement through deeds of loving-kindness. For it is written 'Lovingkindness I desire, not sacrifice.'" -Midrash Avot D'Rabbi Nathan 4:5
So, instead of needlessly worrying over the ritualistic side of atonement which at this time is impossible to fulfill, we should focus on these acts of lovingkindness. Love and mecry to one's fellow man is a kipur sufficient for us.
You can slaughter all the sheep you want or claim the blood Mashiakh all the day long but without acts of mercy and lovingkindness you will most certainly not have a part in ha-olam ha-ba.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chizuk Emunah on Sept 15, 2006 7:23:16 GMT -8
Well said!
|
|
for the various types of sacrifices, it is apparent that a blood sacrifices is not necessary to atone for sin.
