From: btiffany@pbs.org
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Atonement
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:13:36 GMT
Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA

From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Subject: Re: Atonement
Date: 27 Sep 92 14:08:37 GMT

>I wrote:
>>> Mike Brown ignores the context of these passages, namely, animal
>>> sacrifices.  An animal sacrifice requires blood.  Atonement which
>>> does not involve animal sacrifice obviously doesn't require blood.
> 
>Bruce Tiffany writes:
>> I think this pretty well demonstrates how the Tanakh has been twisted to
>> avoid the obvious meaning.  It has been turned completely upside down by
>> the rabbis.
> 
>I gave the context; how else do you get an obvious meaning?

By reading what it says, not what the rabbis said it should have said.

>> This is the same vacuous "logic" Rob Strom was spouting forth.  But if
>> atonement could have been made *without* blood, there would not have been
>> any need to atone with blood at *all*.
> 
>Of course there would be a need.  If you make an animal sacrifice, you
>need blood.  That's what they passage talks about.

Now when you go swimming, don't forget the water, because there's no
swimming without water!

Is that it?

I know the rabbis like to make "laws" like that, but I don't think HaShem
is nearly as silly as they.

>> Or perhaps you would like to explain why blood was required at certain
>> times or for certain sins (or whatever you think the criteria was, or
>> whatever you think the blood was for),

>The blood connotes the life-force of the animal.

Hey!  You're getting closer, Rob! ...

>>  .. and not others.  And why not
>> the others?  How did your other forms of "atonement" actually secure
>> atonement?  On what basis were they effective?
> 
>I'm not one to say how G-d grants atonement.  They gave jewelry
>to atone for their souls, and got atonement.

... but you're still way off.  Mike already refuted this, but you couldn't
answer him, so you just keep repeating this as if it hadn't been refuted.

>>> Again, the context is performing animal sacrifices, not atonement
>>> in general.
>>
>> On the contrary, the context is atonement.  Read chapter 16.
> 
>The particular context is the Yom Kippur service.  Chapter 17
>describes other sacrifices.

And chapter 17 talks about blood sacrifices.  It doesn't say there is a
substitute for blood.

>>>>     It is with good reason that the letter to the Hebrews says  that  "the
>>>>     law  requires  that  nearly  everything  be  cleansed  with blood, AND
>>>>     WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO FORGIVENESS"  (Heb. 9:22),
>>>
>>> This just demonstrates that the author of Hebrews had a different
>>> understanding of atonement than that of Judaism.
>>
>> The author of the letter was most probably a Pharisee who studied under
>> Gamli'el.
> 
>Or a Sadducee trying and failing to imitate a Pharisee.  See
>Maccoby's _Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity_.

When you can't deal with the issues, resort to attacking the opposition.
Maccoby can say anything he wants -- it doesn't change the fact that there
is no atonement without blood.

>>> The "korban chatas" - "sin/guilt offering" is only made (1) in the
>>> case of inadvertent sin (2) *after* one repents for the sin and
>>> makes restitution.  Leviticus 5:20-26 provides a typical example
>>> of this process.  See Maccoby's _Judas Iscariot_.
>>
>> So where's the contradiction?  Repentance must precede sacrifice.  Sacrifice
>> without repentance means nothing, as Mike Brown made clear.
> 
>Well, Jesus was already sacrificed, so even if he were a valid
>sacrifice, it wouldn't help today.  Of course, Christianity today
>holds that Jesus' sacrifice does count today, which is OK by
>me if you call such beliefs Christianity.

We do call it that.  It's the same thing the Jews believed before much of
modern Rabbinism was even invented.  It's Biblical Judaism.

>> The fact that the person didn't contribute the blood (even if he contributes
>> an animal it isn't his own blood) further illustrates that this is a
>> vicarious sacrifice.
> 
>He didn't contribute blood on his own behalf, he contributed flour.

Which was burned with the blood on the altar.

Like I said, the fact that the person didn't contribute the blood further
illustrates that this is a vicarious sacrifice.  An animal died in his place.

>> You haven't demonstrated from Scripture that anything other than blood ever
>> secured atonement.
> 
>I claim that I did so.  Christians would believe otherwise, which is
>why their religion is different from mine.

It certainly is.  As Dan Juster said, Rabbinic Judaism represents a
severe departure from Biblical Judaism.

>>> A crucial semantic distinction.  While they are technically not the
>>> sacrifices, they achieve the same effect.  We have already established
>>> that sacrifice is not the only means to atonement.
>>
>> That has *not* been established, only claimed.  There is no support for such
>> a claim in Scripture.
> 
>According to the tenets of Judaism, there is.

RABBINIC Judaism, Rob, not Torah Judaism.  According to Biblical Judaism,
there is no atonement without blood.

>> *HOW* can prayer effect atonement?  Surely the learned "sages" must
>> understand this, since they assert that it does.  How do mitzvot
>> secure atonement?
>
>G-d said that they do; who am I to explain G-d?

You're copping out.  I didn't ask you to explain God, I asked you to explain
a central tenet of your belief system.  Apparently you cannot.  If you tried,
it would become even more apparent that thus stuff was pulled out of thin
air by people who were desperately trying to come up with some alternative
to Messianic Judaism.

>>>>     Thus, in Psalm 51, after stating that "the sacrifices  of  God  are  a
>>>>     broken  spirit"  (v.   17), David says:  "Then there will be righteous
>>>>     sacrifices, whole burnt offerings to delight you; then bulls  will  be
>>>>     offered  on  your altar" (v.  19).
>>>
>>> This Psalm is talking about the uselessness of insincere sacrifices,
>>> which G-d does not desire.
>>
>> Agreed.  Note that David didn't say, "Then we will do the mitzvot and repeat
>> prayers by rote ..."
> 
>Using the Evinrude is the preferred method of propulsion, so that's
>what is used when possible.

Rabbinic Judaism is a point system.  You get a certain amount of credit for
certain deeds.  Some deeds net you more points with God than others.

>>> See other posts where I show examples of atonement without blood.
>>
>> I have yet to see an example of atonement without blood.  The
>> references I've seen from you so far show no such thing.
> 
>Your refutations are all based on unique translations and
>misplaced context, according to Judaism.

Rabbinism, Rob.  It's Talmud, not Torah.  Don't confuse the two.

>>> The need for the blood of atonement is part ofthe  process of making
>>> a sacrifice which requires blood, not atonement in general.
>>
>> WHY did those sacrifices require blood?  Do you not know?  Why
>> all the blood, if there were other ways of atoning?  Why the slaughter?
>
>Because G-d wanted it.  Isn't that a good enough reason?

Of course that would be a good enough reason to *do* it, if it were true.

I don't believe God wanted lots of animals to die.  Why the slaughter?
Especially, if as you assert, there were other ways to achieve the same end?

Even assuming He "wanted blood" -- why?  Surely the sages knew!  I mean, they
explain everything else in such minute detail, covering every conceivable
angle, asking every conceivable question and then answering it.  But when
it comes to the big one, the silence is deafening.  Why?

And don't try to tell us it's not an important issue to Jews, only to
Christians.  If that were true, there would be no Yom Kippur, nor such
great attention given in Torah to sacrifices.  The rabbis try to tell us
good deeds are sufficient -- but such a belief is contrary to Torah.

>>> First of all, note that the ritual can also be performed without
>>> a chicken, using charity instead.  Also, for those who use an
>>> animal, one may NOT use an animal which would be suitable as a
>>> sacrifice, lest people associate this ritual with a sacrifice.

>> Want to tell us who made up these rules?  I haven't seen them in Torah.

>See _Orach Chaim_, section 605.

As I said: it's not in the Torah.

>> But I *do* understand that the rabbis in fashioning their Oral Tradition
>> were concerned with not having the people associate such action with a
>> sacrifice [another real leap of "logic"!].
> 
>It is perfectly logical to avoid leading people to mistakenly
>believe that sacrifices can be performed outside the Temple.

But the earthly temple is merely a copy of the heavenly original, where the
sacrifice for all time was accepted.

"We have an altar from which those who serve in the Tent are not permitted
to eat.  For the cohen hagadol brings the blood of animals into the Holiest
Place as a sin offering, but their bodies are burned outside the camp
[Leviticus 16:27].  So too Yeshua suffered death outside the gate, in order
to make the people holy through His own blood."  -- Messianic Jews 13:10-12

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
		Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried;
     /\		... He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was
____/__\____	crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being
\  / || \  /	fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed.  All of us
 \/--++--\/	like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own
 /\  ||  /\	way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on
/  \ || /  \	Him. ... By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will
----\--/----	justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities.
     \/							-- Isaiah 53
		Bruce Tiffany