From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Atonement
Date: 27 Sep 1992 09:08:37 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


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?

> 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.

> 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.


>  .. 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.


>> 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.

>>>     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_.

In this sense, "Messianic Jews[sic]" are 100% faithful to the
methods of Paul, by practicing Christianity, but passing
themselves off as Jews, just as Paul taught you in 
I Corinthians 9:20.

[...]
>> 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.

>> Furthermore, many sacrifices were of other types:  regular
>> gift-offerings, peace-offerings, thanksgiving-offerings, none of
>> which relate at all to vicarious self-sacrifice.
>
> Mike refuted you below:
...
>>>     According to Leviticus 5:11-13, a poor Israelite  who  was  unable  to
>>>     bring  the  required trespass offering of a lamb, goat, turtledoves or
...

No he didn't.  He only mentioned sin/trespass offerings.


>> That the person didn't contribute the blood further illustrates
>> that this is not a vicarious self-sacrifice.
>
> You constantly amaze me with your ability to call black white
> and white black.

Charming insult, but rhetorically irrelevant.

> 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.

[...]
>> I'm not saying that they wanted to abolish the system, only that
>> the system was not the exclusive Jewish way to atonement, as Mike Brown
>> incorrectly asserts.
>
> 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.

[...]

[...]
>> 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.  According to
Christianity, there isn't.

> *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?

>>>     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.

>> 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.

>> 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?

>> 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.

> 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.

[...]

Rob

-- 
--
Robert A. Levene     Internet: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu
  "/  //  / /"         Bitnet:   RXL1@APLVM