Without blood there is no atonement for sins.

"There was/is nothing more Jewish than accepting Jesus as their messiah." I might challenge you on that one later... but first thing first, let's start with this debate :) I would first like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. According to the book of Hebrews "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Hebrews 9:22. Thus if we believe the New Testament to be inspired, this statement is true. But the New Testament can only be proven true if it is consistent with the Hebrew Bible. And the New Testament can be proven false if it contradicts the Hebrew Bible. Does the writer of Hebrews take that Bible verse from the Hebrew Bible? Not really. He actually misquoted Leviticus 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." It does not say that blood is mandatory for sin atonement, but the blood is used for atoning for sins. In fact, if you look at the Verse in context, it does not talk about atonement whatsoever, it talks about what is forbidden to eat and only talks about the blood of animals. ""I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the 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. Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood." As Leveticus 17 does not say that blood is required for atonement, but only use for atonement, we only need one instance in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) that shows that blood is not required to prove the New Testament wrong. "But if he is not able to bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, then he who sinned shall bring for his offering one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a sin offering. He shall put no oil on it, nor shall he put frankincense on it, for it is a sin offering. 12 Then he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as a memorial portion, and burn it on the altar according to the offerings made by fire to the Lord. It is a sin offering. 13 The priest shall make atonement for him, for his sin that he has committed in any of these matters; and it shall be forgiven him. The rest shall be the priest"s as a grain offering."" Levticus 5:11-13 So here, plain and simple someone could have bring fine flour and his sins would be atoned. There are other example in the Bible that I could use, but only one is really needed. I would like to turn our attention to Daniel. Daniel was Righteous as per Ezekiel 14:14 "Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, said the Lord GOD." But, the problem is, Daniel never brought sin offerings to G-d. The Temple was destroyed when Daniel was still a child or youth. And since, no blood was shed how could he have been considered righteous. My opponent will tell you that Jesus blood covered his sins, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished. But this is not what the Hebrew Bible teaches. In fact, the Bible teaches that no Blood is needed. In the time of Ezekiel and Daniel, the Jewish People did not have a Temple, nevertheless, Ezekiel told them how to be righteous. Ezekiel 18 says ""Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father As well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die." If we use this very verse, we can learn two things. First, the person that sins shall die. Second, someone else cannot pay the price for your sins. Thus Jesus blood is of no use for you. For the first problem, we can find out how to be consider just before G-d by continuing reading Ezekiel 18 "21 But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?" says the Lord God, "and not that he should turn from his ways and live?" Again, no atonement was required. But my opponent will tell you that G-d would not be right to forgive sins like that. That G-d would not be just to do so... "25 Yet you say, "The way of the Lord is not fair." Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? 27 When a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. 28 Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 29 Yet the house of Israel says, "The way of the Lord is not fair." O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair?" So G-d is fair and right to forgive without Blood. Finally, I would like to add that only animal that were sacrificed on the altar according to what G-d ordained can be used for atonement for sins. Jesus blood could not in any way be used for atonement. Leviticus 17, the same chapter that says that blood is used for atonement also say: ""Whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice, 9 and does not bring it to the door of the tabernacle of meeting, to offer it to the Lord, that man shall be cut off from among his people." Jesus was killed at Golgotha as the writer of Hebrews say "And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood." This contradict the requirements of G-d for Sacrifices, so Jesus "sacrifice" was in no way useful for remission of sin. Thank you.