Political Crossfire Forums

[Duchifas]

Of course, as I mentioned many times, the "and more" is crucial. The commandments are not everything, never were, and never were meant to be. Rather, they are the basis for a relationship with G-d. A relationship that is much deeper than that.

[John]

Duchifas wrote: John wrote: Duchifas wrote: John wrote: Duchifas wrote: John wrote: Quote: Ah, "how" indeed. Well, that's the whole point of Judaism. To figure out how to do that. You don't expect me to answer it in one post, do you?

But didn't God promise to redeem His people? Does being redeemed involve figuring something out?

G-d promised many things. In most cases, for those promises to come about we have to work VERY HARD on it.

Like working hard at loving Him?

Yup. And in more than just declarations of love.

Like what?

Like serving Him. By fulfilling His commandments and more.

Cool. :-D

[liquidate]

Duchifas wrote: John wrote: What is the Jewish understanding behind needing to sacrifice an animal for the atonement (covering) of sin?

Why did God require the death of an animal?

One of the more important, if not the most important, aspects is for the person to internalize that it should really be him that this should be done to.

My understanding is that it's a punishment for sin. In those days, a man's livestock was his wealth and having to slaughter the best of the flock was an excellent determent to sin.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Judaism teaches to not destroy the animal soul (desires, pleasures, etc), but bring them close to G-d. Or put it in His service.

Where does this particular doctrine originate from? I don't really get that from reading the Scriptures.

I mean the part about humans having an "animal soul" and a "human soul" and not destroying the "animal soul".

And what does that have to do with sacrifice?


I thought the answer that it should be us there instead of the animal was a pretty good answer. It reminds us what we have brought into the world, sin. I think really knowing that you sinned and repenting is what expiates sin, and sacrifice facilitated this for a time.

BTW Why doesn't Judaism practice sacrifice anymore? Does it have to be done in the Temple?

How is sin propitiated in your view?

[Duchifas]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Judaism teaches to not destroy the animal soul (desires, pleasures, etc), but bring them close to G-d. Or put it in His service.

Where does this particular doctrine originate from? I don't really get that from reading the Scriptures.

As John would say, maybe pray about it? :roll:

Quote: I mean the part about humans having an "animal soul" and a "human soul" and not destroying the "animal soul".

And what does that have to do with sacrifice?

Why must there be only one reason for everything? Some things may have a few reasons.

Quote: I thought the answer that it should be us there instead of the animal was a pretty good answer. It reminds us what we have brought into the world, sin. I think really knowing that you sinned and repenting is what expiates sin, and sacrifice facilitated this for a time.

Yes.

Quote: BTW Why doesn't Judaism practice sacrifice anymore? Does it have to be done in the Temple?

Yes.

Quote: How is sin propitiated in your view?

As it always was, from the beginning of time - by sincere repentance.

[cap'n queasy]

Then what is the logic behind rebuilding the Temple and resuming sacrifices if it is not needed to propitiate sin?

[Duchifas]

cap'n queasy wrote: Then what is the logic behind rebuilding the Temple and resuming sacrifices if it is not needed to propitiate sin?

First, just because something is not absolutely necessary doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice to have it.

I can live my life without eating meat, if I need to. But just because I can, doesn't mean that I will pass on a good piece of Kosher steak.

Second, sacrifices is not the only thing the Temple is for.

Third, its G-d's plan, which I am sure you will agree, is often beyond logic, as we understand it. He wants the Temple rebuilt, so it will be, whether it seems logical or not.

Fourth, the holiday is here soon, so I won't post for a while.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Third, its G-d's plan, which I am sure you will agree, is often beyond logic, as we understand it. He wants the Temple rebuilt, so it will be, whether it seems logical or not.

That's true. I wonder what it will look like?

[psholtz]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Third, its G-d's plan, which I am sure you will agree, is often beyond logic, as we understand it. He wants the Temple rebuilt, so it will be, whether it seems logical or not.

That's true. I wonder what it will look like?
Leonardo DaVince had a few ideas:



"Know ye not, that your bodies are the Temples of the Living God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth within you?"
-- St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 3:16

[Mailech]

John wrote: Well, I have a question.

Why then did God prefer the sacrifice of the lamb that Abel preformed?

3. Now it came to pass at the end of days, that Cain brought of the fruit of the soil an offering to the Lord.
4. And Abel he too brought of the firstborn of his flocks and of their fattest, and the Lord turned to Abel and to his offering.
5. But to Cain and to his offering He did not turn, and it annoyed Cain exceedingly, and his countenance fell.
6. And the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen?
7. Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it."

Look at the contrast between Abel and Cain. Abel's sacrifice was firstborn, fattest. Whilst Cain's was run of the mill stuff or worse. For that reason G-d did not take Cain's sacrifice, as G-d says "if you improve you will be forgiven".

Don't forget John, there was a sacrifice called the Mincha which was just flour and oil.

[John]

Mailech wrote: John wrote: Well, I have a question.

Why then did God prefer the sacrifice of the lamb that Abel preformed?

3. Now it came to pass at the end of days, that Cain brought of the fruit of the soil an offering to the Lord.
4. And Abel he too brought of the firstborn of his flocks and of their fattest, and the Lord turned to Abel and to his offering.
5. But to Cain and to his offering He did not turn, and it annoyed Cain exceedingly, and his countenance fell.
6. And the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen?
7. Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it."

Look at the contrast between Abel and Cain. Abel's sacrifice was firstborn, fattest. Whilst Cain's was run of the mill stuff or worse. For that reason G-d did not take Cain's sacrifice, as G-d says "if you improve you will be forgiven".

Don't forget John, there was a sacrifice called the Mincha which was just flour and oil.

But that sacrifice was for the EXTREMELY poor and it was done WITH blood sacrifices. Plus you can not deny that the Day of Atonement had to be preformed with the death of an animal.

Where does it say that Cain's offerings were "run of the mill stuff or worse"??

Actually if you look at what it says...it says "And Abel he too brought of the firstborn of his flocks and of their fattest..."


I think the difference was that Abel understood what the sacrifice meant. He understood what it meant when God killed the animals in order to clothe his parents.

Cain didn't. Cain WORKED HARD to yield the fruit of the land. Cain was offering his WORK..instead of his trust.

[psholtz]

Mailech wrote: John wrote: Well, I have a question.

Why then did God prefer the sacrifice of the lamb that Abel preformed?

3. Now it came to pass at the end of days, that Cain brought of the fruit of the soil an offering to the Lord.
4. And Abel he too brought of the firstborn of his flocks and of their fattest, and the Lord turned to Abel and to his offering.
5. But to Cain and to his offering He did not turn, and it annoyed Cain exceedingly, and his countenance fell.
6. And the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen?
7. Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it."

Look at the contrast between Abel and Cain. Abel's sacrifice was firstborn, fattest. Whilst Cain's was run of the mill stuff or worse. For that reason G-d did not take Cain's sacrifice, as G-d says "if you improve you will be forgiven".

Don't forget John, there was a sacrifice called the Mincha which was just flour and oil.
I don't think it's something that's supposed to be taken "literally" in terms of meat and fat sacrifices versus flour and oil sacrifices, etc.. The best way to think about it is in terms of what Christians might call "talents", although it applies to all people of all religious persuasions. I'm sure Jews have an analogy, but since I don't know what it's called, I'll use the Christian term "talent"..

Point is, every human is born w/ a set of inherent "talents".. God expects you to use those "talents" in a constructive, productive way. So updating the story of Cain and Abel for 2005, suppose (for the sake of discussion) that they're both children of Steven Spielberg, and they both have a great "talent" for making movies. One of them (Abel) goes out to make high power docu-dramas that get people all around the world to reflect upon themselves. Maybe he even makes a sequel to Schindler's List or something, who knows? When called to give credit for who made the movies, Abel points to God (it's a "sacrifice" to God, after all, isn't it?) The other one (Cain) goes on to use this talent to make a bunch of porn movies. When called to give credit for who made the movies, Cain takes all the credit himself (keeps the "best" - if that's the right word for it - for himself). At the end of the day, they're both called to God to account for how they made use of their respective talents. God is pleased with Abel's use, God is displeased w/ Cain's..

Simple as that.

Use what you've been gifted w/ wisely, for it is a gift..

[TheTruth]

Most Jewish people that i have come across are not familiar with isaiah 53. This is not a trick verse and i am not making this up. Here is what the Jews in the 7th century BC thought their messiah was going to look like.

1 Who has believed what we have heard? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? 2 For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or comeliness that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? 9 And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand; 11 he shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.


So as you can read, the Messiah was obviously going to be a subtiionary sacrifice/atonment for his people. IT was not until the 11th century did the Jews begin to falsely believe that this was not going to be their Messiah. Shlomo Yitzchaki (better known as Rabbi Rashi) first developed the idea that the "suffering servant" as depicted in Isaiah 53 was not their future Messiah but rather it represented Israel. Israel can not be the suffering servant though because israel is clearly not sinless (as Isaiah 53 depicts). And even if someone could make a valid argument that I53 was something other than Jesus, they would have to go against the law of Ockams razor to make their world view valid. For if it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and walks like a duck, only the sophist would say it is an elephant.
The suffering servant (as depicted in I53) is obviously Jesus.

[Black]

The Christian's best source - bar none - for arguing that blood sacrifice is needed is from Lev 17:
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.


Read out of context, they might have a case.

But notice the first word, 'For'.

This clearly ties the context to the verse.

What is the context?

Very important:

It turns out that the context is only arguing why you can not eat the blood of the sacrifice, it would invalidate that sacrifice, that particular effort would not work:

Let's count how many times it says 'eat' (as in do not eat).
[bold mine]
Lev 17
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."
13 " 'Any Israelite or any alien living among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth,
14 because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, "You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off."


So the thrust of the context is why you can not eat the blood.
If you eat your payment of salt, then that salt can not be used for payment.


Now, here's the most important part:

It does not say there is no other way to be forgiven!!!!

How can one be forgiven? Blood only? That's not in any bible.

Leviticus 5:11
" 'If, however, he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring as an offering for his sin a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering. He must not put oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering.

NO BLOOD in Lev 5:11! Yet it is a sin offering.

More important is the idea of reform, trying. Never 'perfection', rather, to try:



Jer 7 says that the idea that you need a "Temple" (= the blood sacrifice location) is a mistake. What the Jewish God wants is for you to reform your ways.


Jer 7:
3 This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Reform your ways and your actions, and I will let you live in this place.
4 Do not trust in deceptive words and say, "This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD!"
5 If you really change your ways and your actions and deal with each other justly,
6 if you do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm,
7 then I will let you live in this place, in the land I gave your forefathers for ever and ever.

Notice that verse 6 gives the kind of actions you must change.
Don't oppress strangers, orphans, widows, don't murder.

I'll even wager everybody here managed to follow those. (Sorry Christians fail the 'other gods part' when they worship a man, but three out of four aint bad.)

Also, same proof at:

Ezek 18:
21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die.
22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live.
23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?


Notice the amazing thing above:
22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live.

Christians need to have a chat with their censors, that verse should never have stayed in their bible.

Imagine: God promises to FORGET all your sins.

Why?

Here's the shocker:
Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live.

Nothing, not the Trinity, nothing about Jesus, nothing is as important to the Christian as deleting this from their bible.

Christians can not abide the notion that God can forgive sin.

But if Jesus can forgiven, then God can forgive. (Why not?)

All verses in this post are taken from Christian translations, no Christian translation disagrees. Just the Christian religion.

Again,
Isaiah 55
7 Let the wicked forsake his way
and the evil man his thoughts.
Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him,
and to our God, for he will freely pardon.


No charge, no blood required.

Christians need to get this removed asap!

Shame it's in their own bibles.

And it's not just the Jewish scriptures:

Mat 6:
14 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
15 But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Which blasphemer said this? Jesus said this!!!

This contradicts the formula that you must believe Jesus is God, your sin atonement sacrifice.

Mat 6 is not out of context, not at all.

ON the contrary, this is Jesus' main theme: God forgives easily.

According to Jesus, if you forgive others, you will be forgiven. If you don't, you won't be. Nothing about blood. Well, that's not true, Jesus does say something about blood, to refute it:

(Jesus quoting Hosea 6)
Matthew 9:13
But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Mercy meaning to forgive others.

Matthew 12:7
If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent.

Yet Christians condemn the innocent when they say you're going to hell for the smallest sin and can not be forgiven if you show mercy to others.

Either Jesus was a liar or modern Christians are liars (by mistake) when they claim we must believe Jesus is God a flesh blood sin atonement sacrifice to be forgiven. (Jesus never said this in any way. He said he sacrificed his life [for his teachings which happen to be that you must forgive others] but to sacrifice your life is not the same as being a sin atonement sacrifice (a kosher animal brought by a repentant sinner for unintentional sins Lev 4:2 unintentional)

Other, in context, proofs that Jesus said you must forgive others to be forgiven as his formula. Never 'you must believe I am God your sin atonement sacrifice' = never.

Three bagger:
Luke 6
37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

What's funny is that most Christians have that one memorized! Yet no where in the Christian bible does Jesus say, 'You must believe I am God, your sin atonement sacrifice.'

Since Christians know Jesus said, 'forgive and ye shall be forgiven' yet do not believe, rather, believe that is incorrect, false, then they knowingly fail John 3:16 which says they must believe in Jesus.

At a minimum, to believe in Gandhi, means to believe what the man says.

Since Christians do not believe what Jesus says, they fail the obvious meaning of John 3:16, they do not believe Jesus when he says to be forgiven, you must forgive others.

That's how to be forgiven. True or False? If you say, 'True' you have a chance to believe in Jesus. If you say, 'That's not on point for being forgiven.' Then you refuse to 'believe in Jesus'.

Details about the forgiveness formula to be forgiven by God:


Mat 18:
21Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"
22Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.


Ask yourself at verse 35 below: WHERE'S THE BLOOD?!?
Mat 18 (same chapter)
32 "Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to.
33 Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?'
34 In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
35 "This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."

Where's the blood?!? If I'm going to hell for failing to believe Jesus is God, my sin atonement sacrifice, shouldn't Jesus have said so?
Jesus did say he was sacrificing his life, but that was to say he was giving up his life for his above teachings. Never did Jesus say I have to believe he is God, my sin atonement sacrifice. Never.

(the word, 'Trinity' is never found in the entire bible)


Mark 11:
25 And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.
26 But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your sins.

No church would let you teach that, because they don't believe it. They don't believe in Jesus. They violate John 3:16.

True or false, before the cross, one could be forgiven of all sins?

If modern Christianity is true, I need Jesus to die as my sin atonement sacrifice first, before I can be forgiven. So, until the cross, technically, no one was forgiven of their sins.

Luke 1:77
to give his people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins,

How to get salvation? What's the formula? Salvation is "through the forgiveness of their sins". (not 'through a blood sacrifice')

Even Jesus forgave those who killed him. Practiced what he preached.

Matthew 9:2
Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven."

forgiven = past tense = before the cross

Mark 2:5
When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."

forgiven = past tense = before the cross

Luke 5:20
When Jesus saw their faith, he said, "Friend, your sins are forgiven."


forgiven = past tense = before the cross


Luke 7:47
Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little."
48: Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."

her many sins have been forgiven ... are forgiven" before the cross! No hint in the text she had to believe he was God, sin atonement sacrifice. And it was too soon, even the disciples did not know Jesus had to die yet! (he had to die because he wouldn't stop teaching that you can be forgiven without the Temple sacrifices! Ironic, no?

Jesus gave up his life teaching that, and that is how 'through his blood' people are forgiven. He taught them that they must forgive others to be forgiven. Never did he say, not once, never: 'You must believe I am God, your sin atonement sacrifice, to be forgiven.'

Never.

On the issue of Jesus being God, even if you believe that, Jesus gave the formula above, you must forgive to be forgiven.

But let me note:

John 1: the chapter says God created the world with words, this is consistant with Gen chapter 1: "Let there be light." Jesus later studies the word of God (at Luke 2:52) and thus embodies the word, the word became flesh (like if you study a book and live it, the you become the book. John 1:5 proves the context is symbolic at first. Symbolic is real meaning, but not literal meaning. It says something, but in symbolic terms.

John 8: Jesus says he was 'sent' by God five times 'sent'. Only at the end, after claiming to be a spokesperson for God, does he speak for God. Being sent by Bob does not make me Bob.

Also, the 'I am' is an incomplete sentence. Jesus never said, 'I am God." He was only arguing that God is the God of those already dead, a sub argument important to Jesus for some reason, we see the other part of that argument at Mat 22. Evidently, some others felt that God did not control the underworld or something.

John 10:30 I and the Father are one."

a. That's out of context. The context of John 10 has Jesus distinguishing himself from God several times, example, verse 34 can only mean that by using that word he is NOT claiming to be a god. But more importantly at John 17, the phrase is defined, same book, same writer:


John 17:11I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me— so that they may be one as we are one.


21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one:
23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

'one' meaning on the same team.

I just spent an hour on that, thank you for your attention.

PS, if Jesus was the Passover Sacrifice, this was not a 'sin atonement sacrifice'. It was a festival offering whether you sinned or not. You ate it. For food. To be happy for the festival.

[Duchifas]

Wow. An excellent extensive analysis. I found it very interesting. Thanks, Black. :hi:

[cap'n queasy]

Black, I think your exgesis leaves a bit to be desired.


Quote: Heb 9:26 -
Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

Quote: Hebrews 10:7-18 - 7 "THEN I SAID, 'BEHOLD, I HAVE COME (IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME) TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD.' " 8 After saying above, "SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them" (which are offered according to the Law,) 9 then He said, "BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL." He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13 waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. 15 And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, 16 "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM," {He then says,} 17 "AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE." 18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

Quote: Hebrews 11:4-31 - 4 By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks. 5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; AND HE WAS NOT FOUND BECAUSE GOD TOOK HIM UP; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God. 6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. 7 By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. 8 By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; 10 for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God. 11 By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore there was born even of one man, and him as good as dead at that, as many descendants AS THE STARS OF HEAVEN IN NUMBER, AND INNUMERABLE AS THE SAND WHICH IS BY THE SEASHORE. 13 All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14 For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. 15 And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them. 17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; 18 it was he to whom it was said, "IN ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS SHALL BE CALLED." 19 He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type. 20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau, even regarding things to come. 21 By faith Jacob, as he was dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and worshiped, leaning on the top of his staff. 22 By faith Joseph, when he was dying, made mention of the exodus of the sons of Israel, and gave orders concerning his bones. 23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw he was a beautiful child; and they were not afraid of the king's edict. 24 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, 25 choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, 26 considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward. 27 By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as seeing Him who is unseen. 28 By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of the blood, so that he who destroyed the firstborn would not touch them. 29 By faith they passed through the Red Sea as though they were passing through dry land; and the Egyptians, when they attempted it, were drowned. 30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days. 31 By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace.

It is Faith in the effectiveness of Christ's blood sacrifice that redeems one. The same was true of the Mosiac sacrifices during the dispensation of the Law.

To argue against the effectiveness of one's own mode of redemption to attack this Faith is a tenous argument at best.

There is a big difference between a peace or other offering and one that propitiates sin.

Quote: 12 "You shall take some of the blood of the bull and put it on the horns of the altar with your finger; and you shall pour out all the blood at the base of the altar. 13 "You shall take all the fat that covers the entrails and the lobe of the liver, and the two kidneys and the fat that is on them, and offer them up in smoke on the altar. 14 "But the flesh of the bull and its hide and its refuse, you shall burn with fire outside the camp; it is a sin offering.

Quote: 22 "You shall also take the fat from the ram and the fat tail, and the fat that covers the entrails and the lobe of the liver, and the two kidneys and the fat that is on them and the right thigh for it is a ram of ordination, 23 and one cake of bread and one cake of bread mixed with oil and one wafer from the basket of unleavened bread which is set before the LORD; 24 and you shall put all these in the hands of Aaron and in the hands of his sons, and shall wave them as a wave offering before the LORD.

[Mailech]

cap'n, you must have missed the quote, from Leviticus 5:11
" 'If, however, he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring as an offering for his sin a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering. He must not put oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering.

[cap'n queasy]

I didn't miss it.

This indicates to me that it is the Faith to make the sacrifices that redeems such a person. Not the sacrifice itself.
If it were not so, why does this only apply to a poor man? Couldn't anyone make such a sacrifice if it were just as effective as a blood sacrifice?

I wonder why one doesn't put oil or incense into this offering? Do you know, Mailech?

Also, isn't an ephah of fine flour a fairly large amount? I guess pidgeons or doves were more expensive at this time than they are now.

[Duchifas]

cap'n queasy wrote: I didn't miss it.

This indicates to me that it is the Faith to make the sacrifices that redeems such a person.

Faith? Where did that come from? Why not regret? Why not repentance? Why faith and why capitalized?

Quote: Not the sacrifice itself.

Amen. Did I miss something, or did you just confirm that Black is correct?

[John]

Mailech wrote: cap'n, you must have missed the quote, from Leviticus 5:11
" 'If, however, he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring as an offering for his sin a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering. He must not put oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering.


It was a sin offering...but it wasn't an atonement for sin. Big difference.

Atonement for sin is ONLY possible with blood.


Leviticus 17
11 'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.'

You have no high priest to offer the blood upon the Mercy seat for you.

Well, actually you do..but you need to accept Him.