Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Why many Jews do not believe Yeshua is the Messiah.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Nad_M said:
4 hours ago, tek91 said:

Everytime in Deuteronomy that the hebrew words "from your brethren"was used it was always talking about from their midst, from the Israelites.

Not really.

The key word here is brethren and how the Torah uses it in relation to the Israelites

Show me one reference of "from your brethren" in the torah and tanach referring to the Ishmaelites. Thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, tek91 said:

What? Look im not going to continue if your just going to throw nonsense instead of an intelligent dialogue.

Jesus' sacrifice is an atonement for the sins of the world. Per your words.

Is a person that rejects the notion part of the world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Show me one reference of "from your brethren" in the torah and tanach referring to the Ishmaelites.

Deut18 is one example.

Again, the key word is "brethren"and how it is used between the Israelites and their non israelite brethren. If the Torah applies it to non Israelites, it may therefore apply to Ishmaelites. 

The idea that "from among your brethren" is a sentence only used for the Israelites is arbitrary. The contention is precisely that it is not everytime the case, as in the prophecy of Deut18.

Edited by Nad_M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Jesus' sacrifice is an atonement for the sins of the world. Per your words.

Is a person that rejects the notion part of the world?

Ok I think I am starting to understand what you are saying now...

Yes, Yeshuas sin atonement sacrifice is for the sins of the World meaning it's out there for any person to receive by faith but it wont take effect until a person believes and receives it.

It's similar to the ways the jews would bring the animal sacrifices. They by faith accepted and believed that the shedding of innocent blood would cover their sins.

As far as who receives it 

Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Yeshua is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World but not everyone will receive their sins forgiven thats why unfortunately many are lost.

If you die tomorrow without your sins forgiven you will face God on Judgement day. I would hate it if your sins arent forgiven.

Mohammad won't be able to save you neither the excuse that you were just following the religion of islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Nad_M said:

I see no verse there that God outlines a way of forgiveness of sin with out blood.

I can show you tons just in the book of Leviticus.

Let me just show a few fallacys from the link you showed me and how flawed their verses are.

1Sam15:22"Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD

Does not mention anything about sins being forgiven any other way. Of course if we obey we dont need sacrifice lol

Thats what sin is disobeying. We need sacrifice if we disobey you get it?

Lets see another....

Ps69:30-31"I will praise the name of God with a song, and will magnify him with thanksgiving. [This] also shall please the LORD better than an ox [or] bullock that hath horns and hoofs"

Thats not saying that praises and songs atone sins.

Hos6:6"I desire kindness and not sacrifices, the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings".

Ok thats nice this does not outline a way of atoning sin without blood. Of course God desires kindness and the knowledge of God. But what if we rebel and are not kind and sin then what?

I think you get the point....nothing in that page ever mentions a way of atoning without blood.

 

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, tek91 said:

Yes, Yeshuas sin atonement sacrifice is for the sins of the World meaning it's out there for any person to receive by faith but it wont take effect until a person believes and receives it.

Where is the underlined part in the passage?

3 minutes ago, tek91 said:

It's similar to the ways the jews would bring the animal sacrifices. They by faith accepted and believed that the shedding of innocent blood would cover their sins

Yes, faith and deeds. The offering is brought by the person seeking atonement, and slaughtered either by the sinner or by the (Aaronic) priest. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah. All sacrifices, logicaly are offered by man to God, and never the other way around, by God to man. It is mankind that needs sacrifices to understand the value of life, giving up something of value for the betterment of our spiritual selves.

 Where, as a side note, in Torah does God prescribe humans as appropriate for sin sacrifice? Instead we read that human sacrifices of any kind is a forbidden abomination

10 minutes ago, tek91 said:

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many

Yes, the world consists of many sinners

11 minutes ago, tek91 said:

Yeshua is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World

Sure. But this obsession with a "passover lamb" atoning for the sins of mankind misrepresents HB teachings on several levels. Firstly, the passover sacrifice is an individual offering, not communal Numb28:22 and according to Ex12, the Passover lamb was NOT a sin or even an atonement sacrifice but was meant to commemorate the Israelites' salvation from Egyptian bondage.

Passover has thus nothing to do with repentance, but thanks-giving. Further, the Hebrew "seh" used in Ex12:3 doesnt mean a lamb as seen from V5"you can take the seh either from the lambs or from the goats". 

 
The "paschal lamb" didnt therefore even have to be a lamb as proposed in John who was obviously writing to a pagan audience who was familiar with lambs in their mythologies.
 
Historically, as reported in the HB, the blood of the paschal lambs marked the door frames of houses of the ISraelites to spare their firstborn males once the plague of death is delivered to the land of Egypt. The lambs were also to be roasted and eaten. Jesus was neither roasted nor eaten, and, once more, the Passover lamb was in actuality many lambs, not one, which were NOT atonement sacrifices but thanksgiving offerings.
 
17 minutes ago, tek91 said:

If you die tomorrow without your sins forgiven you will face God on Judgement day.

Facing Allah will be the supreme honor of the elect on judgement day. 

18 minutes ago, tek91 said:

Mohammad won't be able to save you

The mercy and justice of Allah will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me give you an example of what I want

 Leviticus 10:16-20

basically Moses was upset because they did not eat the offering for sin but as this verses show ITS GIVEN TO THEM TO BEAR INIQUITY TO MAKE ATONEMENT FOR THEM

Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron which were left alive, saying,Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord?

Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded. And Aaron said unto Moses, Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord; and such things have befallen me: and if I had eaten the sin offering to day, should it have been accepted in the sight of the Lord?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 minutes ago, tek91 said:

1Sam15:22"Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD

Does not mention anything about sins being forgiven any other way. Of course if we obey we dont need sacrifice lol

Sure. The verse contrasts what is important in God's sight; obedience rather than blood. Hence the option to repent and be forgiven without shedding blood

8 minutes ago, tek91 said:

nothing in that page ever mentions a way of atoning without blood.

It does, and very convincingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Deut18 is one example.

Again, the key word is "brethren"and how it is used between the Israelites and their non israelite brethren. If the Torah applies it to non Israelites, it may therefore apply to Ishmaelites. 

The idea that "from among your brethren" is a sentence only used for the Israelites is arbitrary. The contention is precisely that it is not everytime the case, as in the prophecy of Deut18.

Michael Brown showed from the hebrew 11 times the term from your brethren refers to the Israelites. The term used for the prophet like Moses was "From your Brethren" meaning from their midst from their fellow Israelites.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 minutes ago, tek91 said:

Let me give you an example of what I want

 Leviticus 10:16-20

basically Moses was upset because they did not eat the offering for sin but as this verses show ITS GIVEN TO THEM TO BEAR INIQUITY TO MAKE ATONEMENT FOR THEM

It does not say that only blood atones. Some atoning sacrifices, like the scapegoat offering, do not even require the death of the animal (besides the long list of ways the Torah gives to be forgiven other than animal offerings). The issue with blood is that Jews are forbidden from eating it. Its only purpose is on the altar or to be thrown away into the dirt, see Lev17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
16 minutes ago, tek91 said:

Michael Brown showed from the hebrew 11 times the term from your brethren refers to the Israelites.

How many times does the Torah refer to non-israelites as their brethren?

Doesnt it say that Ishmael lived in the presence of all his "brethren"?

 

After Moses's death and Joshua's apointment for prophethood Deut31, the HB says there never arose a Prophet like unto Moses, who in addition spoke to God face to face and performed great wonders Deut34. This means that him being "like unto Moses" is an indicator still awaiting fulfillement, even after an Israelite prophet appeared on the scene.

The word "brethren" used to qualify the prophet like unto Moses is a general term especially in semitic languages. It implies the real brothers, first cousins, the remotest cousins, or anyone else sharing a specific particularity with the addressees.

In the Torah itself, in Deut23:7 or Numb20:14 and Deut2:4, the word brehtren is used in the broader sense, in the context of the lengthy instructions being delivered to the Israelites. God orders regarding the Edomites who are non-Israelites, non-Jewish descendants of Jacob's elder brother Esau and calls them Israel' brethren. What this means is the tribal affiliation of brethren that exists between the tribes of Israel, such as between the Levites and other tribes, is the same affiliation that exists between the Israelites, Ishmaelites and Edomites.

At the beginning of the chapter in which the prophecy is found, in Deut18:2, it plainly shows how "brethren" can be used for people outside the tribe for whom the word applies. It says the priests are excluded from sharing in their brethren's inheritence. The priests are Levites. It isnt saying the Levitic priests are excluded from sharing in their Levite brethren's inheritence but in the other Israelite tribe's inheritence. So, just like "brethren" here is used for the Levites but doesnt mean the brethren from within the same tribe, in the same way, "brethren" in the prophecy of Deut18:18 is used for the entire ISraelites but doesnt mean the brethren from within the same tribe.

As is seen from the language, let alone the use of the word throughout the HB and even within the same chapter of the prophecy, if the promised prophet was to come from among the Israelites, the wording of the prophecy should have been clear cut, leaving no possibility for any alternate rendering: "I will raise them up a prophet from among themselves".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nad_M said:

. The verse contrasts what is important in God's sight; obedience rather than blood. Hence the option to repent and be forgiven without shedding blood

Thats not saying that obedience atones sin? Did you read the specific verse I showed where blood SPECIFICALLY ATONES SIN.

I have tons of evidence in Leviticus and other books.  Evidence of God specifically mentioning blood atoning sin and bearing iniquity.

No where is there written obedience atones or bears iniquity.

Don't you believe allah measures your good work and your bad and by that he decides you go to heaven.

Where is that in the torah and tanach???? Thats an invention by mohammad.

Your sins are not forgiven my friend i'm sorry to have to tell you this.

Mohammad himself was unsure whether he could go to heaven or not.

Yet you trust him instead of Yeshua who ensures your salvation.

I would not want to be you at Judgement day, if you die in sin....

 

 

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nad_M said:

does not say that only blood atones. Some atoning sacrifices, like the scapegoat offering, do not even require the death of the animal (besides the long list of ways the Torah gives to be forgiven other than animal offerings). The issue with blood is that Jews are forbidden from eating it. Its only purpose is on the altar or to be thrown away into the dirt, see Lev17.

I did not say anything about it saying its the only way through that verse.

Im saying that as you yourself admit and cannot deny it shows that the sin offering was used to bear iniquity of the congregation to atone their sin. Even you cannot deny it. But you cant show me not even one verse of God outlining another way.

You cant show me God saying obedience removes sin, or repentance atones and bears iniquity nothing you show..

Only BLOOD....So I ask you again HOW ARE YOUR SINS FORGIVEN?

 

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nad_M said:

, like the scapegoat offering, do not even require the death of the animal (

Did you read about the scapegoat offering? Two goats were used in that one offering.

One goat was killed and its blood sprinkled and the other goat the jews confessed their sins and let go.

Without the shedding of the blood of the first goat the 2nd goat would not have been let go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nad_M said:

issue with blood is that Jews are forbidden from eating it. Its only purpose is on the altar or to be thrown away into the dirt, see Lev17.

Why is is the blood fobidden to eat?

Bible is very specific

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

Thats the reason God gives not to eat blood.

Its all about THE BLOOD my friend.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nad_M said:

After Moses's death and Joshua's apointment for prophethood Deut31, the HB says there never arose a Prophet like unto Moses, who in addition spoke to God face to face and performed great wonders Deut34. This means that him being "like unto Moses" is an indicator still awaiting fulfillement, even after an Israelite prophet appeared on the scene.

The word "brethren" used to qualify the prophet like unto Moses is a general term especially in semitic languages. It implies the real brothers, first cousins, the remotest cousins, or anyone else sharing a specific particularity with the addressees.

In the Torah itself, in Deut23:7 or Numb20:14 and Deut2:4, the word brehtren is used in the broader sense, in the context of the lengthy instructions being delivered to the Israelites. God orders regarding the Edomites who are non-Israelites, non-Jewish descendants of Jacob's elder brother Esau and calls them Israel' brethren. What this means is the tribal affiliation of brethren that exists between the tribes of Israel, such as between the Levites and other tribes, is the same affiliation that exists between the Israelites, Ishmaelites and Edomites.

At the beginning of the chapter in which the prophecy is found, in Deut18:2, it plainly shows how "brethren" can be used for people outside the tribe for whom the word applies. It says the priests are excluded from sharing in their brethren's inheritence. The priests are Levites. It isnt saying the Levitic priests are excluded from sharing in their Levite brethren's inheritence but in the other Israelite tribe's inheritence. So, just like "brethren" here is used for the Levites but doesnt mean the brethren from within the same tribe, in the same way, "brethren" in the prophecy of Deut18:18 is used for the entire ISraelites but doesnt mean the brethren from within the same tribe.

As is seen from the language, let alone the use of the word throughout the HB and even within the same chapter of the prophecy, if the promised prophet was to come from among the Israelites, the wording of the prophecy should have been clear cut, leaving no possibility for any alternate rendering: "I will raise them up a prophet from among themselves".

In other words you cant find one quote of the term "From your Brethren" to refer to the Ishmaelites.

That term was exclusively for the Israelites from their midst. 11 times it was shown in just Deuteronomy and all 11 times it refers to the Israelites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, tek91 said:

Thats not saying that obedience atones sin

That issue is not diacussed in those 3 verses. It says obedience is more important to God than animal offerings. And that is why the Torah prwscribes many other ways than pouring blood to be forgiven.

 

6 hours ago, tek91 said:

Don't you believe allah measures your good work

Why did God precribe obedience to the mosaic commandements?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, tek91 said:

I would not want to be you at Judgement day

Nobody will take anybody's place on judgement day. Otherwise it wouldnt be a day where justice is meted out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, tek91 said:

But you cant show me not even one verse of God outlining another way.

Sure did. Some 30 verses speaking of other than blood there https://truthanvil.blogspot.com/2020/05/islam-critiqued-dreams-of-transilvania.html?m=1

Edited by Nad_M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, tek91 said:

Did you read about the scapegoat offering?

Sure. 

It is the closest parallel one can make between Jesus' sin sacrifice and the HB. The procedure is outlined in Lev16 and occurs on a day called The Day of Atonement/Yom kippur, each year, not passover as is supposed to have happened in the NT. Levitical, Aaronic priests must preside Ex29:9, not pagans as what happened to Jesus. Neither was Jesus an Aaronic priest, since he was from Judah. 

Although individual offerings were brought for the expiation of specific, unintentional sins on Yom kippur, the offer brought on Yom Kippur that cleansed all sins (as in what Jesus is supposed to have accomplished) is the offer where the scapegoat was sent ALIVE into the wilderness, symbolicaly carrying away the sins. Even in that case, somewhat close to Jesus' sacrifice, the shedding of blood is not even an obligation for sin atonement. And even then, this applies only if one repents. If one does not repent, the goat atones only for the light sins.

Again, the offering that was killed among the 2 goats (not lambs, Christians better call Jesus "the goat of God" to be more alligned with the HB) was for minor sins, the one dedicated to the great sins was left alive. The 2 offerings were unrelated in terms of atonement.

It is ironic for Christian apologists to mention halakha requirements that validate or not an offering when it suits them, and yet the supposed sin atonement of this "lamb of God" breaks almost every single legal procedure of the HB.

Speaking of requirements of the scapegoat offering, the high priest must have on very specific clothes, without which the sacrifice is invalid. See Lev 16. What were the pagan Roman executioners dressed like? What did their pagan altar look like? Where was the second offering next to Jesus supposed to validate him as a sacrifice?

Edited by Nad_M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, tek91 said:

Why is is the blood fobidden to eat?

Bible is very specific

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

Thats the reason God gives not to eat blood.

Its all about THE BLOOD my friend.

Of course. In the case of blood offering, it is the blood that atones hence its purpose to be on the altar or thrown in the dirt.

Where does it say in the passage or anywhere else that only blood atones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, tek91 said:

you cant find one quote of the term "From your Brethren" to refer to the Ishmaelites

I sure did. Deut18 is the place. The context is what decides the meaning of a general word or expression, as is here the case with "brethren". No matter how many times it is used in a particular sense, the meaning changes of the context allows. Deut18 cannot be speaking of Israelites for many reasons.

Those interested can read these links

https://truthanvil.blogspot.com/2020/04/cira-international-delve-into-bible.html?m=0

https://truthanvil.blogspot.com/2020/04/cira-international-enlarged-perspective.html?m=0

https://truthanvil.blogspot.com/2020/04/cira-international-seek-individual.html?m=0

https://truthanvil.blogspot.com/2020/04/cira-international-look-beyond-common.html?m=0

https://truthanvil.blogspot.com/2020/04/cira-international-wont-haven-gentile.html?m=0

Edited by Nad_M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Sure. 

It is the closest parallel one can make between Jesus' sin sacrifice and the HB. The procedure is outlined in Lev16 and occurs on a day called The Day of Atonement/Yom kippur, each year, not passover as is supposed to have happened in the NT. Levitical, Aaronic priests must preside Ex29:9, not pagans as what happened to Jesus. Neither was Jesus an Aaronic priest, since he was from Judah. 

Although individual offerings were brought for the expiation of specific, unintentional sins on Yom kippur, the offer brought on Yom Kippur that cleansed all sins (as in what Jesus is supposed to have accomplished) is the offer where the scapegoat was sent ALIVE into the wilderness, symbolicaly carrying away the sins. Even in that case, somewhat close to Jesus' sacrifice, the shedding of blood is not even an obligation for sin atonement. And even then, this applies only if one repents. If one does not repent, the goat atones only for the light sins.

Again, the offering that was killed among the 2 goats (not lambs, Christians better call Jesus "the goat of God" to be more alligned with the HB) was for minor sins, the one dedicated to the great sins was left alive. The 2 offerings were unrelated in terms of atonement.

It is ironic for Christian apologists to mention halakha requirements that validate or not an offering when it suits them, and yet the supposed sin atonement of this "lamb of God" breaks almost every single legal procedure of the HB.

Speaking of requirements of the scapegoat offering, the high priest must have on very specific clothes, without which the sacrifice is invalid. See Lev 16. What were the pagan Roman executioners dressed like? What did their pagan altar look like? Where was the second offering next to Jesus supposed to validate him as a sacrifice?

As a brief summary, from a technical viewpoint, besides conceptual (passover sacrifice is for thanksgiving, not sin atonement) neither Jesus' physical condition prior to the sacrifice (blemished following his beating), his age (over 30), the date of sacrifice (15 Nisan in some accounts while John says it was on the 14th), the location (outside Jerusalem and its Temple), the executioners (pagans), the method (a pagan symbol non designated by God), nor the cause of death (asphyxiation or shock), agree with the conditions of the paschal sacrifice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Nad_M said:

at issue is not diacussed in those 3 verses. It says obedience is more important to God than animal offerings. And that is why the Torah prwscribes many other ways than pouring blood to be forgiven.

The verse does not say obedience is more important then sacrifice.

It says that the Lord delights in obeying the voice of the Lord more than sacrifices.

I would think that that would be self explanatory. If a person obeys God is he sinning? Of course not so God would rather we not sin then to sin.

My question to you Mr. Nad_M is what happens when we are not in obedience (sin).

Then what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Why did God precribe obedience to the mosaic commandements

You dodged my question. Where is it written anywhere in the torah/tanach that God puts our good works and bad in a balance and this decides who goes to heaven or hell?

In the quran is not this how your sins are dealt with and is not this the measure allah takes to welcome you to Heaven or Hell?

Then of course something as importance as this would be mentioned somewhere in the hebrew bible. Can you please enlighten me where I could find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Nobody will take anybody's place on judgement day. Otherwise it wouldnt be a day where justice is meted out

You took out a part when you quoted me. I said if you die in sin.

I was not talking about taking your place. I was talking about how if you die without Yeshua's sacrifice you will have to stand before God with all your sins on you.

My question to you is when that day comes that you stand before God almighty and be judged do you believe that you will be found innocent on your own?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Sure did. Some 30 verses speaking of other than blood there https://truthanvil.blogspot.com/2020/05/islam-critiqued-dreams-of-transilvania.html?m=1

I answered most of them but I can answer more just for you my friend.

Ps86:5,Numbers14:20"Then the LORD said, 'I do forgive, just as you have asked". 

Did not Moses and Solomon which are spoken here participate in the temple animal sacrifices? So they were offering the daily sacrifices right?

Ps51:17"The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, and a broken and contrite heart"

First that is not talking about sins being atoned in anyway or that animal sacrifices are invalid.

Second it is not specific. You have to ask yourself what kind of sacrifice was Psalms speaking about? Grain offering, peace offering, guilt offering?

Does it say it's a sin offering?

flour offerings to be placed on top of the fire offering, not necessarily on top of the blood Lev5:11-13. This could be done by placing this particular flour offering on top of other flour offerings Lev6:11 the same way as one blood offering is placed on top of another Lev4:35

The verse does not say on top of the fire it says the priest shall take a handful of the grain as a memorial portion and burn it on the altar not on top which is a lie. This means it was mixed with the blood.

This was basically a merciful way for the poor jews to participate in the sacrifices.

This is just an example of the vagueness of your sources and error of your website.

Again I would have to ask you to provide me with a clear passage of something besides blood atoning sin similar to the verses I showed you in Leviticus 10:16-20. If you could show me something as clear as that I would shut my mouth.

Nothing vague please.

Even in the debate between Dr. Michael Brown and Rabbi Tovia Singer who is a representative of Judaism not even he could find a single source of God outlining a different way of atonement.

 

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Nad_M said:

is the closest parallel one can make between Jesus' sin sacrifice and the HB. The procedure is outlined in Lev16 and occurs on a day called The Day of Atonement/Yom kippur, each year, not passover as is supposed to have happened in the NT. Levitical, Aaronic priests must preside Ex29:9, not pagans as what happened to Jesus. Neither was Jesus an Aaronic priest, since he was from Judah. 

Although individual offerings were brought for the expiation of specific, unintentional sins on Yom kippur, the offer brought on Yom Kippur that cleansed all sins (as in what Jesus is supposed to have accomplished) is the offer where the scapegoat was sent ALIVE into the wilderness, symbolicaly carrying away the sins. Even in that case, somewhat close to Jesus' sacrifice, the shedding of blood is not even an obligation for sin atonement. And even then, this applies only if one repents. If one does not repent, the goat atones only for the light sins.

Again, the offering that was killed among the 2 goats (not lambs, Christians better call Jesus "the goat of God" to be more alligned with the HB) was for minor sins, the one dedicated to the great sins was left alive. The 2 offerings were unrelated in terms of atonement.

It is ironic for Christian apologists to mention halakha requirements that validate or not an offering when it suits them, and yet the supposed sin atonement of this "lamb of God" breaks almost every single legal procedure of the HB.

Speaking of requirements of the scapegoat offering, the high priest must have on very specific clothes, without which the sacrifice is invalid. See Lev 16. What were the pagan Roman executioners dressed like? What did their pagan altar look like? Where was the second offering next to Jesus supposed to validate him as a sacrifice?

Edited 15 hours ago by Nad_M

The fact that a goat was killed and its blood shed in the scapegoat sacrifice destroys your case because blood was indeed shed.

The rest of what you wrote has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Please deal with the subject and do not dodge the subject matter.

You claimed the scapegoat offering did not involve blood.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Nad_M said:

I sure did. Deut18 is the place. The context is what decides the meaning of a general word or expression, as is here the case with "brethren". No matter how many times it is used in a particular sense, the meaning changes of the context allows. Deut18 cannot be speaking of Israelites for many reasons.

Sorry no "From your Brethen" im disappointed.

Read also the preceding verses. God is speaking to the Jews

Deuteronomy 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken

Tell me my friend what does in your midst mean?

Let me help you out a bit

 qereb קֶרֶב

It means inward part, within, from their middle.

That's another reason it can't possibly mean the Ishmaelites.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, tek91 said:

The verse does not say obedience is more important then sacrifice.

It says that the Lord delights in obeying the voice of the Lord more than sacrifices.

The level of denial is becoming humorous. Obeying God's voice being more important that sacrifices does not mean sacrifices are of lesser value than obedience?

8 hours ago, tek91 said:

what happens when we are not in obedience 

We are in disobedience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, tek91 said:

You dodged my question. Where is it written anywhere in the torah/tanach that God puts our good works and bad in a balance and this decides who goes to heaven or hell?

No it is in congruence with the premise that God does not care for human deeds and will not take them to account eventually.

Why did God prescribe commandements to follow to the best of one's ability?

8 hours ago, tek91 said:

Then of course something as importance as this would be mentioned somewhere in the hebrew bible. Can you please enlighten me where I could find it.

See above. As Jesus states in the NT in Matt6 when contrasting the ephemeral worldly benefits with the real, everlasting reward of the Hereafter which every believer should ultimately strive for "store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also". That mindframe inclines the individual to goodness, generosity towards one's fellow man. Because God's generous, gracious reward far surpasses in value the merit of those that shall benefit from it.

Jesus further tells them that if they do not pray, fast or give to charity with the right attitude, but only to be seen by men as the hypocritical Jews of his time did, just as the hypocritical Muslims in Muhammad's time did 9:53-4, then "you will have no reward from your Father in heaven" and that their works will remain in this passing world and vanish.

Just as taught in Islam, God's gracious reward in the hereafter is what the true follower of Jesus strives for in this world.

A day will come where the people will be divided into groups; those that did the works that Jesus prescribed, will enter the heavenly abode while those that did not, will go to Hell Matt25.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...