ersay
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by ersay on Nov 16, 2021 9:05:34 GMT -8
Hello.Below I will write an article inspired by the views of a Jew. I request you to tell me whether this article is true or false.
"According to Christians, Jesus sacrificed himself for the sins of humanity. For the wages of sin is death. The idea of sacrificing for sin comes from chapters 5 and 6 of the Book of Leviticus. But there is one detail. The victim mentioned in chapters 5 and 6 is a special victim. There is no need to sacrifice for every sin. If a person commits a sin intentionally, there is no need for a sacrifice for that person. For example, if a person steals intentionally, there is no need to sacrifice an animal. He repents, gives alms, but does not sacrifice. So what Christians teach is wrong. Sacrifices are not required for every sin. The main thing is repentance. God looks at repentance, not sacrifice." |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Nov 16, 2021 13:34:25 GMT -8
... I will write an article inspired by the views of a Jew. I request you to tell me whether this article is true or false.
"According to Christians, Jesus sacrificed himself for the sins of humanity. For the wages of sin is death. The idea of sacrificing for sin comes from chapters 5 and 6 of the Book of Leviticus. But there is one detail. The victim mentioned in chapters 5 and 6 is a special victim. There is no need to sacrifice for every sin. If a person commits a sin intentionally, there is no need for a sacrifice for that person. For example, if a person steals intentionally, there is no need to sacrifice an animal. He repents, gives alms, but does not sacrifice. So what Christians teach is wrong. Sacrifices are not required for every sin. The main thing is repentance. God looks at repentance, not sacrifice."
Another argument you will hear is that Torah forbids human sacrifice. Absolutely true! However it does not forbid an act of selfless sacrifice to save others. Yeshua's act on the execution stake was the equivalent of a soldier falling on a grenade to save his buddies. We posthumously award the Medal of Honor for that. Against such an act there is no law or instruction.
A blood sacrifice IS required for every sin! To say otherwise is a gross mischaracterization of Torah and the nature of our God; a God who came, lived a sinless life, and died, shedding His own innocent blood so that we might live. And it removes all hope since we all at some point have sinned "high handedly." But praise God we do have hope in Yeshua Ha'Moshiach!
|
|
ersay
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by ersay on Nov 17, 2021 10:06:34 GMT -8
First of all, thank you for your informative answer. But there are some points that I still don't understand. As you said in your article, it is necessary to offer a sacrifice for SOME intentional sins. But sacrifice does not have to be offered for EVERY intentional sin. For example, if someone steals $20, they must pay double according to Exodus 22:7. He does not need to offer sacrifices for this. If the thief confesses, he must offer a special sacrifice. The name of this victim is Korban Asham. That is, this thief does not confess, but if he is caught, the thief can no longer offer a sacrifice. According to Hebrews 9:22, "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." But if a thief is not caught, he does not need a victim. Please don't get me wrong, my intention is to learn the truth. Since my mother tongue is not English, I can sometimes have trouble understanding you.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Nov 17, 2021 12:44:54 GMT -8
First of all, thank you for your informative answer. But there are some points that I still don't understand. As you said in your article, it is necessary to offer a sacrifice for SOME intentional sins. But sacrifice does not have to be offered for EVERY intentional sin. For example, if someone steals $20, they must pay double according to Exodus 22:7. He does not need to offer sacrifices for this. If the thief confesses, he must offer a special sacrifice. The name of this victim is Korban Asham. That is, this thief does not confess, but if he is caught, the thief can no longer offer a sacrifice. According to Hebrews 9:22, "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." But if a thief is not caught, he does not need a victim. Please don't get me wrong, my intention is to learn the truth. Since my mother tongue is not English, I can sometimes have trouble understanding you.
It’s not the sacrifice itself, but the heart condition of the one giving it that matters:Psalm 51:16-17 (ESV) For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it;
you will not be pleased with a burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.
The blood of the sacrifices were kippurot, temporary coverings for sin. They did not remove sin. Atonement is needed; reconciliation with God through confession of one's transgressions and repentance, made possible by the redemptive life and death of Yeshua. Only the innocent blood of God Himself (for Yeshua is God) could act as a substitutionary atonement for our sins:1 Peter 2:24 (ESV) He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.
2 Corinthians 5:21 (ESV) For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
So sacrifices, while important were not as important as a contrite heart when the sacrifice was made. And nothing was or is as important as the sacrifice made by Yeshua by which our sins can be removed. In the TNK (Old Testament) they looked forward in faith to the promised Messiah. We now look back in faith to that same Messiah. Thus salvation has always been in Yeshua:
Acts 4:12 (ESV) And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”The blood sacrifice of God Himself in the person of Yeshua was, and is needed for the remission of our sins. Just because there was no sacrifice specified for some intentional sins does not mean a blood sacrifice is not required in the end. Take that away and you have no hope:Romans 6:23 (ESV) For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
|
|
ersay
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by ersay on Nov 17, 2021 19:52:35 GMT -8
First of all, I totally agree with what you wrote. But you miss a point. The Bible uses a very clear phrase: "the wages of sin is death". But the Jews say that the church made it up. Because as you wrote, what God really wants is repentance, not sacrifice. In other words, the Church slanders Judaism according to its own mind. The Church says, "According to your theology, the wages of sin is death. That's why the ultimate sacrifice, Jesus, has come." but the Jews also say, "Sacrifice has never been so important to us. Yes, sacrifice is important, but the real reward for sin is repentance, not sacrifice." Please excuse me for saying this, but the church first invents a theology itself and then sees Jesus as the real victim accordingly. I hope I was able to express myself more clearly. Best Regards.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Nov 17, 2021 22:13:18 GMT -8
First of all, I totally agree with what you wrote. But you miss a point. The Bible uses a very clear phrase: "the wages of sin is death". But the Jews say that the church made it up. Because as you wrote, what God really wants is repentance, not sacrifice. In other words, the Church slanders Judaism according to its own mind. The Church says, "According to your theology, the wages of sin is death. That's why the ultimate sacrifice, Jesus, has come." but the Jews also say, "Sacrifice has never been so important to us. Yes, sacrifice is important, but the real reward for sin is repentance, not sacrifice." Please excuse me for saying this, but the church first invents a theology itself and then sees Jesus as the real victim accordingly. I hope I was able to express myself more clearly. Best Regards.
On the Day of Atonement the High Priest made atonement for all (and here “all”does mean “ALL”) of Israel’s sins:Leviticus 16:15-22 15 “Then he shall slaughter the goat of the sin offering, which is for the people, and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the atoning cover and in front of the atoning cover. 16 He shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel and because of their unlawful acts regarding all their sins; and he shall do so for the tent of meeting which remains with them in the midst of their impurities. 17 When he goes in to make atonement in the Holy Place, no one shall be in the tent of meeting until he comes out, so that he may make atonement for himself and for his household, and for all the assembly of Israel. 18 Then he shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord and make atonement for it; he shall take some of the blood from the bull and some of the blood from the goat, and put it on the horns of the altar on all sides. 19 With his finger he shall sprinkle some of the blood on it seven times and cleanse it, and consecrate it from the impurities of the sons of Israel.
20 “When he finishes atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. 21 Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the wrongdoings of the sons of Israel and all their unlawful acts regarding all their sins; and he shall place them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands ready. 22 Then the goat shall carry on itself all their wrongdoings to an isolated territory; he shall release the goat in the wilderness.“Notice carefully what the text says: The High Priest is to confess over the head of this goat "all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites - all their sins" - and "all" means "all." Notice also that the text specifically speaks of the "wickedness" (or "iniquity"; Hebrew, awon) and "rebellion" (Hebrew, pesha‘, meaning willful transgression) of the Israelites, not merely their unintentional sins.” Dr. Michael L. Brown, Messianic Jewish scholar.With respect to sins atoned for by the sacrificial goats, the Talmud is even more unequivocal:Shevu‘ot 1:6, a well-known text in traditional Jewish law:And for a deliberate act of imparting uncleanness to the sanctuary and its Holy Things, a goat [whose blood is sprinkled] inside and the Day of Atonement effect atonement.
And for all other transgressions which are in the Torah.
the minor or serious, deliberate or inadvertent, those done knowingly or done unknowingly, violating a positive or a negative commandment, those punishable by extirpation [karet] and those punishable by death at the hands of the court.The goat which is sent away [Lev. 16:21] effects atonement.
And for uncleanness that occurs in the Temple and to its holy sacrifices through wantonness, [the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement] and the Day of Atonement effect atonement, and for [all] other transgressions [spoken of] in the Law, light or grace, premeditated or inadvertent, aware or unaware, transgressions of positive commands or negative commands, sin whose penalty is excision or sins punishable by death imposed by the court, the scapegoat makes atonement.And according to Maimonides (Laws of Repentance, 1:2): Since the goat sent to Azazel atones 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 Azazel 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 atoned for by the goat sent [to Azazeil].
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].
These are clear evidence from the most reliable sanctioned sources of Rabbinical Judaism saying the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement effected atonement for intentional and unintentiona sins. The only question raised by Rabbinic authorities here is how necessary is repentance. Messianic Jews would say it is absolutely essential.
I don’t mean t be too hard on Judaism. They have no problem raising tough questions and looking at apparent contradictions. However in this case I think their understandable hatred and mistrust of Christianity clouds their judgement. Both repentance and blood sacrifice have always been a part of the Hebrew and Christian, and now Messianic tradition as the movement resurges. And I do mean for ALL sins! As to the question of sacrifices never being important to the Jews, I would point out that 3 times every day at the times of the daily sacrifices in the Temple all Jewish males, and in many traditions women who wish to take this mitzvah on themselves offer “the sacrifice of our lips” (prayers) in the form of the Amidah. Jews remember things, and I would say this is an important remembrance to them to do it 3 times every day. And it is no short prayer, with preparations and variations for different seasons to consider. And both my siddurim stress the heart condition when those prayers are said! No, the sacrifices are as important today as they were when the Temple stood. Unfortunately it is just as important to many Jewish leaders to mischaracterize the sacrifice made by Yeshua. And if you are looking for who is slandered in this, I would posit it is believers in Yeshua, not Judaism who are defamed.I am not fond of the church fathers, most of whom were unrepentant pagans and absolute anti-Semites. They did defame the Jews in many ways, and this has carried over into every church today to some degree (though it is getting better among Evangelicals). However this is not one of them. As I said, in this case it is Yeshua and His followers, be they Christian or Messianic who are slandered by the anti-missionaries among the Jews. |
|
ersay
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by ersay on Nov 18, 2021 22:01:06 GMT -8
Thank you for your answer. I'll investigate this a little more.
|
|
ersay
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by ersay on Dec 7, 2021 1:14:24 GMT -8
Hello there. Let me ask you a few questions about the goat sent to Azazel. Let's give an example. Let's say someone steals. And he didn't give back twice the money he stole. Days passed and the day came when Azazel would be sent the goat. A goat was sent to Azazel and the goat fell off the cliff and died. So the goat bore all the sins of the people of Israel and died. THIS thief is also a member of the Israeli people. So he died for this thief's sin too. Then this thief thought about the evil he had done and made a heartfelt repentance. So a goat went to Azazel for the thief, and the thief repented from the heart. Both the condition of sacrifice and the condition of repentance were fulfilled. But in this case the thief is not forgiven. Because the thief is still obliged to give back twice what he took. This thief will not be forgiven unless he gives back twice what he stole. So the sacrifice sent to Azazel is not atonement for all intentional and unintentional sins. Because if there were atonement, it would be enough for the thief to just repent. Did I explain what I mean?
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Dec 7, 2021 1:34:23 GMT -8
Hello there. Let me ask you a few questions about the goat sent to Azazel. Let's give an example. Let's say someone steals. And he didn't give back twice the money he stole. Days passed and the day came when Azazel would be sent the goat. A goat was sent to Azazel and the goat fell off the cliff and died. So the goat bore all the sins of the people of Israel and died. THIS thief is also a member of the Israeli people. So he died for this thief's sin too. Then this thief thought about the evil he had done and made a heartfelt repentance. So a goat went to Azazel for the thief, and the thief repented from the heart. Both the condition of sacrifice and the condition of repentance were fulfilled. But in this case the thief is not forgiven. Because the thief is still obliged to give back twice what he took. This thief will not be forgiven unless he gives back twice what he stole. So the sacrifice sent to Azazel is not atonement for all intentional and unintentional sins. Because if there were atonement, it would be enough for the thief to just repent. Did I explain what I mean?
In Judaism there is the idea of both national redemption and personal redemption. Christian nations, to our downfall have forgotten this. But just because the nation is forgiven does not mean every individual is forgiven. |
|
ersay
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by ersay on Dec 7, 2021 1:51:34 GMT -8
I'm sorry if I'm bothering you. But the thief example still holds true. Because let's say there is a thief. Theft made. He regretted it. He returned twice what he had stolen and repented. Conclusion? The thief was forgiven. Has blood been spilled? No. So not every sin wants death. If there is no connection between the goat sent to Azazel and the thief, the example of theft still remains valid.
You told me about Talmud Zewahim 6a. The sentence “atonement can only be made with blood” is said in the Talmud in the case of a burnt offering.The idea of the Talmud if you are coming to make a sacrifice, and you sin after you have put your hands in the animal but before the slaughter.
The question is whether that sin was atone or not
The Talmud brings one opinion that that actual atonement doesn't happen until the blood is not spilled in the Altar
But this opinion is challenged later in the same discussion
My English is not very good and I'm sorry if I wrote things that offended you.
|
|
ersay
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by ersay on Dec 7, 2021 1:54:59 GMT -8
Full Talmud episode
👉🏻A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When one brings a burnt offering, 👈🏻which atones for violations of positive mitzvot, 👉🏻does it atone even for a violation of a positive mitzva that one committed AFTER designating the animal as an offering, or does it not atone for such a violation?👈🏻
The Gemara elaborates: Do we say that the halakha in this case is just as it is with regard to a sin offering, in that just as a sin offering does atone for a sin that one committed before designation of the animal 👉🏻but does not atone for a sin that one committed AFTER designation, 👈🏻here too, a burnt offering does atone for violations that one committed before designation but does not atone for those committed after designation?
Or, perhaps a burnt offering is not similar to a sin offering, as with regard to a sin offering one must bring one sin offering for each and every sin he commits. But here, since a burnt offering atones even for one who has committed several violations of positive mitzvot, one may claim that it also atones even for the violation of a positive mitzva that one committed after designation of the animal.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a baraita: The verse states: “And he shall place his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to atone for him” (Leviticus 1:4). And does placing hands atone for one’s sins? But isn’t atonement achieved only by the sprinkling of the blood, as it is stated: “For it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life” (Leviticus 17:11)? Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states: “And he shall place…and it shall be accepted for him to atone”? This teaches that if one deemed the ritual of placing hands to be a non-essential mitzva and consequently failed to perform it, the verse ascribes to him blame as though the offering did not atone for his sins; and nevertheless, the offering atoned for his sins.
What, does the final clause of the baraita not mean that the offer-ing atoned for the violation of any positive mitzva that the owner committed before designation of the animal, but it did not atone for violation of the positive mitzva of placing hands on the head of the offering, as that constitutes a violation of a positive mitzva after designation of the animal? Apparently, a burnt offering does not atone for the violations committed after the animal’s designation.
Rava said in response: You say that the positive mitzva of placing hands is proof? There it is different, since as long as he does not slaughter the offering, he remains obligated to stand and place his hands on its head. He has not yet violated the mitzva. When does the violation of this positive mitzva occur? It occurs after the slaughter, at which point fulfillment of the mitzva is no longer possible. And with regard to a violation committed after the slaughter, we do not raise the dilemma; clearly a burnt offering does not atone for such a violation.
Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to Rava: Say the baraita means that the offering atoned for the transgression of the person, but it did not atone for him before Heaven, i.e., it is not accepted by God as a perfect offering.
Didn’t we learn in a mishna with regard to the purification process of a leper (Nega’im 14:10): The verse states: “And the rest of the oil that is in the priest’s hand he shall put upon the head of the one that is to be purified, to make atonement for him before the Lord” (Leviticus 14:18). This teaches that if the priest placed the oil on the leper’s head, it atoned for him, and he is purified, but if he did not place the oil on his head, it did not atone for him; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: Placement of the oil on the leper’s head is a non-essential mitzva. Therefore, whether the oil was placed on his head or whether it was not placed on his head, it atoned for him, but the verse ascribes the leper blame as though it did not atone for him.
The Gemara comments: What is the meaning of the phrase: As though it did not atone for him? If we say that it is necessary for the leper to bring another offering of oil, didn’t you say that whether the oil was placed on his head or whether it was not placed on his head, it atoned for him? Rather, the meaning of the statement is as follows: It atoned for the person, but did not atone for him before Heaven. Here too, with regard to one who sacrificed an offering without placing hands on its head, the baraita apparently means that the offering atoned for the owner’s transgression, even if it did not atone for him before Heaven.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: There too, with regard to the purification process of a leper, one can explain that the oil atoned for one matter and did not atone for another: It atoned; in other words, the placement of oil on the leper’s right thumb and big toe, which was performed, effected its atonement. But it did not atone, i.e., there still needs to be an atonement effected by placement of oil on the leper’s head, and another log of oil must be brought for the performance of that act.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Dec 7, 2021 12:12:32 GMT -8
I'm sorry if I'm bothering you. Not a problem.But the thief example still holds true. Because let's say there is a thief. Theft made. He regretted it. He returned twice what he had stolen and repented. Conclusion? The thief was forgiven. Has blood been spilled? No. So not every sin wants death. If there is no connection between the goat sent to Azazel and the thief, the example of theft still remains valid. But there is a connection: the sin still accrues against the nation. That is where the goat sent to Azazel comes in; it (and the one sacrificed on the altar) atones for the nations sins for the past year.From a previous post: Let me ask you a few questions about the goat sent to Azazel. Let's give an example. Let's say someone steals. And he didn't give back twice the money he stole. Days passed and the day came when Azazel would be sent the goat. A goat was sent to Azazel and the goat fell off the cliff and died. So the goat bore all the sins of the people of Israel and died. THIS thief is also a member of the Israeli people. So he died for this thief's sin too. Then this thief thought about the evil he had done and made a heartfelt repentance. So a goat went to Azazel for the thief, and the thief repented from the heart. Both the condition of sacrifice and the condition of repentance were fulfilled. But in this case the thief is not forgiven. Because the thief is still obliged to give back twice what he took. This thief will not be forgiven unless he gives back twice what he stole. So the sacrifice sent to Azazel is not atonement for all intentional and unintentional sins. Because if there were atonement, it would be enough for the thief to just repent.I think part of the problem may be you are confusing a blood sacrifice with salvation. Easy to do. The thief, like David committed a transgression; a willful sin against God, and in his case against another man. David repented and was forgiven; "saved" if you will:2 Samuel 12:13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin; you will not die.
So personal salvation always has been dependent on personal repentance. But one of the evidences of true repentance is the fulfillment of the requirements of the law. In your example the thief did not do this. He did not return what he'd stolen or the extra required by Torah. So where was the repentance? He may have been sorry but he did not turn back completely from his sin.
Also the goat did not go to Azazel for the thief. It went for the sins of the nation, one of which was his sin. So even if he had truly repented there would have been a blood sacrifice, but for his sin as it was imputed to the nation. Te Azazel goat nor the one sacrificed would atone for his sin since he continued to sin by not fulfilling Torah.
You told me about Talmud Zewahim 6a. The sentence “atonement can only be made with blood” is said in the Talmud in the case of a burnt offering.The idea of the Talmud if you are coming to make a sacrifice, and you sin after you have put your hands in the animal but before the slaughter. The question is whether that sin was atone or not The Talmud brings one opinion that that actual atonement doesn't happen until the blood is not spilled in the Altar But this opinion is challenged later in the same discussion You will find these types of discussions all through the Talmud where two opposing opinions are discussed. The point is if it is stated and discussed in Talmudic writings then it is part of the nations consciousness. The question of how blood atonement worked was on their mind, even though they had no Temple in which to make their sacrifices.
I gave a couple of quotes from authoritative Jewish sources in support of my position, however I am sure you could find opposing quotes. Jews love to argue. They are famous for it. On the other hand, they take the tough questions and parse them out like no one else can! My English is not very good and I'm sorry if I wrote things that offended you. No problem. My wife tells me mine isn't that good either. I was not offended. Just worried I wasn't clear that I am not an "authority" on things biblical. It's ok to disagree. |
|
ersay
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by ersay on Dec 7, 2021 23:04:25 GMT -8
As far as I know, Christians say: "The reward for every sin is death." That is, a sacrifice must be offered for every sin. Therefore, a perfect sacrifice must be offered for every sin. So, what kind of sacrifice should be offered for the sin committed by the first man and handed down from generation to generation? Answer: A perfect victim. Who is this perfect victim? Jesus Christ, who never sinned.
Now the main claim here is; A sacrifice is required for every sin. But when we look at the Old Testament, we do not see that a sacrifice is required for every sin. David did not sacrifice after he sinned. David simply repented and was forgiven. A thief did not sacrifice a victim. He returned twice what he stole, repented, and was forgiven.
The Church says: For every sin to be forgiven, a sacrifice is required. Jesus Christ was sacrificed for Adam's sin. Because no sin is forgiven without death. Hence the sacrifice of Jesus was necessary.
But we do not see this when we look at the Tanakh. The idea that a sacrifice is required for every sin seems like something the church made up.
I hope I have explained myself fully. Kind regards.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Dec 8, 2021 2:20:23 GMT -8
As far as I know, Christians say: "The reward for every sin is death." That is, a sacrifice must be offered for every sin. Therefore, a perfect sacrifice must be offered for every sin. So, what kind of sacrifice should be offered for the sin committed by the first man and handed down from generation to generation? Answer: A perfect victim. Who is this perfect victim? Jesus Christ, who never sinned. Well, as I said earlier there was no personal sacrifice for intentionally breaking God’s law. However there did remain the sacrifice for the accrued sins of the nation, which included those intentional sins. I believe the emphasis on repentance over sacrifices for intentional sin was to emphasize its importance for our own salvation. Acts 3:19 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. But the yearly sacrifice for the nation was to emphasize the importance of the national character and that nations are judged! Also as I said the entire sacrificial system (including Azazel) was a type which pointed forward to the promised Messiah. The sheep were innocent, sinless. Only an innocent sacrifice would do, and the only way a human could remain sinless would be if He was also God. Only Yeshua HaMoshiach could have, and did die a willing self sacrifice (which is not forbidden) for our sins. But He is God, and we must accept Him on His terms and place our trust in the God of Israel alone.John 14:15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
1 Corinthians 15:3-4 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,Now the main claim here is; A sacrifice is required for every sin. But when we look at the Old Testament, we do not see that a sacrifice is required for every sin. David did not sacrifice after he sinned. David simply repented and was forgiven. A thief did not sacrifice a victim. He returned twice what he stole, repented, and was forgiven. No, the main claim is that the punishment for sin is death. And only the blood of Yeshua can cleanse us from our sins so that we are able to stand before a Holy God and not die.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.The Church says: For every sin to be forgiven, a sacrifice is required. Jesus Christ was sacrificed for Adam's sin. Because no sin is forgiven without death. Hence the sacrifice of Jesus was necessary. “The” church is a lot like saying “the” Jews. There were many sects in 1st cen Judaism, and even different Judiasms’! Contemporary Judaism is not much better, but contemporary Christianity has taken this to a whole new level, particularly here in the US. However since in much of the world “the church” means the RC church, I will assume that is what you mean. And yes, as a Messianic I do believe their doctrine is skewed on many things. However they are (to my knowledge, and I know very little about them really) not too far off on this one. Since they knew so little of Judaism it wouldn’t surprise me to find they came to it by some convoluted means. However they did base their religion on some pretty good Jewish documents, and God’s word is powerful. So … But it is not “for every sin to be forgiven,” but for any sinner to be forgiven. That is a subtle, yet at the same time very profound difference!
Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
But we do not see this when we look at the Tanakh. The idea that a sacrifice is required for every sin seems like something the church made up. We do see it, but in metaphor as prophecy and types. And we see it in the goel, especially in the goats sent to Azazel.I hope I have explained myself fully. Kind regards. I think so. Hope I answered fully. Thanks. |
|
ersay
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by ersay on Dec 9, 2021 23:06:51 GMT -8
I'll think a little more about the goat sent to Azazel. I have a request from you. Can you watch this guy's video? He never tells about the goat sent to Azazel. I think he's keeping the goat sample sent to Azazel confidential.
|
|
- there are 70 faces to 
