 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
In the previous two articles I have tried to make you "think" once you are given the true "facts" that lie behind the Sacrificial System in Biblical Judaism as it relates to "blood atonement". These facts and information presented, of course as you can see, is crucial and lies at the very heart of the New Testament Jesus and his death which is taught by mainline Christianity as the "final atonement" for mankind's sin. We have seen that Christianity and Biblical Judaism remain 180 degrees apart in their belief in how man is to obtain atonement for his sin.
Answer for yourself: Who is right? Well, there are other things we call study and examine to help us gather more evidence which shows us which of the two camps, Judaism or Christianity, are the more correct in their teachings on Biblical Atonement.
We only have to look to Acts 21 to see where James, around 60 C.E., some 30 years following the supposed death of Jesus which we are taught today is the "final atonement for mankind's sins", commanded of Paul to observe the Nazarite Vow, a vow by the way that required animal sacrifices and blood atonement offerings. Think about this for a second. He we supposedly have the closest Jewish followers of this Jesus observing a "vow" long after his death that required the shedding of an animal's blood; blood which obtained for the person making this vow "atonement". This dramatic Nazarite Vow which by the way gain "required the shedding of blood which was placed on the altar" when properly understood shows us that these supposed followers of this Jesus sure did not believe in the slightest that some earlier death of this Jesus was somehow the final sacrifice for sin let alone the final atonement for anything. I challenge the readers to follow this out in their studies by examining Numbers chapter 6 and putting this together with Acts 21 and this Nazarite Vow commanded of Paul by James, the head of the Jerusalem Church, and then ask themselves that if these supposed followers of this Jesus, men whom we are taught knew him best, did not believe that Jesus' death was the final atonement for their sin then answer for yourself why these men of the Jerusalem Church, whom we are told believe the same Christian dogmas about Jesus' death as we do today, evidently did not! This should make you wonder when this teaching of the death of this supposed Jesus as the final atonement for mankind's sin was really created or "borrowed" for ancient legend by Rome and incorporated in the New Testament which we have today.
Answer for yourself: Could this "final atonement doctrine" as connected to Jesus' death be a political-religious ploy to exonerate Rome of all the hideous things that it did yet claim absolution and pardon before the world that they terrorized? One only has to look at Constantine and his Hilter-like life and death-bed "immersion" that washed away all his sins right before his death to see that righteous conduct mattered not by Rome in these years; all that mattered is that "might made right" and in order to "get away with it" before the eyes of the world they conveniently had their "I get away with it" doctrine attached to a simple belief in "Jesus" and his atoning death that vindicated all they did. The only problem is that the Hebrew Scriptures teach that there is no forgiveness or atonement without repentance.
An interesting Scripture must now be addressed and that is Leviticus 17:11 for it is pregnant with meaning. Contrary to the Christian claim that Leviticus 17:11 proves that man can only atone for his iniquity through the shedding of blood, this verse only explains the prohibition of eating blood. In the immediate context of Leviticus 17:11 we find that the Torah is speaking of the prohibition of eating blood, not the subject of sin and atonement. The Torah discusses blood atonement in this verse only as a by-product of its central theme. This crucial message is lost when Christians quote Leviticus 17:11 alone, without the surrounding texts as its proper background. Leviticus 17:11 begins with the conjunctive Hebrew word "ki" (pronounced kee), meaning "This is because....". Whenever a verse begins with this word, it is explaining what has just been related in the previous verse. The previous verse, Leviticus 17:10, must be consulted and reads,
10 ¶ And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers (non-Jews) that sojourn among them, that eateth any manner of blood, I will set My face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
Leviticus 17:11 then continues this message and explains,
11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given "it" (the life) to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood (the life that is in the blood) that maketh atonement by reason of the life.
Many things much be said here. First of all Leviticus 17:11 explains Leviticus 17:10 by revealing that consuming blood is forbidden because it may only be used in the act of sprinkling of the animal's blood on the altar for an atonement (the actual red blood is the vehicle for the Soul that resides in the blood...remember?). God tells us that as far as He is concerned, since He is the "life giver" and all "life is sacred", it is a grievous sin to use it for anything else (the "life" is in the blood again...remember?). The Torah therefore commands us in Leviticus 17:13 - only three verses later -- that when slaughtering an animal, the blood must be poured on to the floor and covered with earth, rendering it useless.
Deuteronomy 12:16, also says: "Only you shall not eat the blood; you shall pour it on the earth like water."
Answer for yourself: What should we learn here?
Leviticus 17:10-11 is therefore declaring two principles about blood:
We must deal with this first issue of eating or "drinking blood" and why it is prohibited.
Gen 9:4 4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. (KJV)
Deut 12:23 23 Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh. (KJV)
Blood, representing life or man's very Soul, was a very important part of the idolatrous religious practices of the people and nations surrounding Israel. Israel was clearly instructed by The Holy One of Israel through Moses not to imitate this abhorrent pagan practice of ingesting blood in any manner. Although the actual blood was later to be substituted with wine in many of the sacred banquets of pagan religions, there is ample evidence to support the claim that literal blood was consumed as part of the ritual worship of pagan deities, and this as a form of atonement. You should see that even these "pagans" understood the very importance of blood and its integral connection with all "life". But this was not the Divine intent as we have seen.
Now we look at Hebrews 9:22 as given below.
Answer for yourself: Where is the writer of Hebrews 9:22 taking this verse from the Hebrew Scriptures? From where does he quote it and its teachings?
Again we have another purposeful and terrible misquote of Leviticus 17:11 and a gross misrepresentation of what the whole of the Hebrew Bible teaches in this Hebrews 9:22 verse. First of all the statement "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" is found nowhere in the Jewish and Hebrew Scriptures; we have to look at the Christian manipulation of these Hebrew Scriptures to find it and we do in Hebrews 9:22.
Heb 9:22 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. (KJV)
Answer for yourself: What should the reader notice right off? The author of this book misquotes Leviticus 17:11 when he states "Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." Although this quote in Hebrews 9:22 is always cross referenced in a Christian study Bible to Leviticus 17:11, it is actually a stunning misquote of the original text and what it actually teaches!!!
Again what I found during my 5 year study of Judaism as compared with Christianity following Seminary is that my birth faith, the faith that I had studied and become ordained, was a faith built off of purposefully misquoted, mistranslated, and "invented" Hebrew texts. I realized to my horror that my faith and my Pastorate was built upon a misrepresentation of the true faith of Judaism and in reality a false faith that was proclaiming consistently misquoted Hebrew Scriptures and other passages conveniently "invented" in order to present to the world a substitute religion that required no repentance whatsoever. In fact the bottom line is that my birth faith, a faith that stresses only "belief" in this Jesus without repentance, is a faith that is an abomination to the real truth of the Hebrew Scriptures. Thus, my resignation and repentance from organized religion and my Pastorate when the evidence became so overwhelming that I no longer could continue being ashamed before God every time I went to Church all the while trying to justify my position on this mega church staff by the "good" that I was doing and the "Judaism" I was teaching under the disguise of "Christianity". I was really teaching "Judaism" under the window dressing of Christianity the final 4 years that I was there. But finally my tears and shame would overwhelm me the more I studied and saw the depth of this false religion which had captured my life and the lives of so many more. Somebody had to tell the world the truth and this mantle became mine over the years.
We cannot pick and choose parts of Hebrew Scriptures to make our Christian dogmas. If we want to use Leviticus 17:11 to bolster the position that blood sacrifices are indispensable for procuring an atonement, we must use all of the verse, not just a part of it. We cannot take our scissors and cut out "pieces" here and there to make our cardinal Christian dogmas that will validate what we have heard preached about this Jesus. We must take the whole of the verse and apply it if we are to ever see clearly just if this Jesus is all that he is preached to be. Leviticus 17:11 specifically says that the blood of the sacrifice must be "placed upon the altar to make atonement for your souls." That is to say, Leviticus 17:11 explicitly declares that blood can only effect atonement if it is placed on the altar. Jesus' blood, however, was never placed on the altar and it ran upon the earth. If the church is going to take the "blood" part of the verse literally, they must also take the "altar" part literally as well. Jesus' blood was never sprinkled on the altar, and therefore his death could not provide atonement for anyone. So much again for "types and shadows".
But we need not end our thought process quite yet. The Torah strictly prohibited the Jewish people from offering human sacrifices under any circumstances. The message of Abraham should have taught us that! There is not one place throughout the entire corpus of the Jewish scriptures where human sacrifices are condoned or taught as the way to God. Rather, throughout the Book of Leviticus we find that only distinct species of animals are permitted for use in blood sacrifices and no where is there any mention that a human sacrifice is pleasing to God or required or even allowed. Just the opposite is taught by God stopping Abraham from sacrificing his son. Again, as you now beginning to see more clearly, the the wanton destruction of "life", the "life in resides in the blood", the "Soul in the blood" is prohibited by God. Such desecration of this Divine Life of God, the Soul, by consumption of blood or eating of blood is not permitted in Lev. 17:11.
Now for a very important thought. Since this passage in Lev. 17:11 is predominately concerned with the prohibition against consuming blood, we must look elsewhere in the Bible for instructions concerning atonement for sins. This full import of this passage in Leviticus will become clearer later on. The passage does say that since blood symbolizes the life of the animal, it, "the blood which carries this Divine Soul", can be used as a means of atoning for our sins. But we must think "Soul" and not really "blood" if we are truly to ever understand the dynamics that are going on behind the scenes and the passages we read.
Answer for yourself: What does this passage in Leviticus 17:11 "not" way? It does not say, however, that blood, used a symbol of the Sacrificial System, is the only means of atoning for sins. Truly, the Holy Hebrew Scriptures tell us of several other things that can be used instead of the blood of a sacrificial ram or bullock and we will see this as we move on. What are some "non-blood" ways taught in the Hebrew Scriptures commanded by God that allows man to atone for his sins?
Throughout the Jewish scriptures, the prophets declared that repentance, prayer, and charity are more pleasing to God for atonement than a blood sacrifice. This should give us cause to think concerning what we have just learned above.
The Prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures repeatedly forewarned the Jewish people from becoming obsessed with blood offerings. Other methods of atonement were more efficacious and would even replace animal sacrifices.
Answer for yourself: Can you think of a replacement for "blood" sacrifice in the Hebrew Scriptures?
We need look only at King David as he declares in Psalm 40:7 that
"Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired; but my ears You have opened; burnt offering and sin offering You have not required."
Answer for yourself: What does this verse state that God accepted as an atonement for sin other than blood? What we find is the "grain" was a substitute for "blood" as found in the Hebrew Scriptures.
These words of the Bible hardly agree with the Christian doctrine that sin can only be expiated through the shedding of blood.
It is important to note that in a Christian Bible this verse appears as Psalm 40:6. Again if we compare this quote in the Christian Psalms with the Hebrew original in Psalms we have again been tragically misled by Christianity which fails to preach the whole Counsel of God. Because the Psalmist's words in the original Hebrew were deeply offensive to the early church, a church by the way that was built upon the death of this supposed Jesus, we find that the writer of Hebrews 10:5-6 continues to misrepresent and forge the Hebrew Scriptures and here he altered Psalm 40:7 to read instead
"Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure."
Notice how King David's original words, "but my ears You have opened" (the intent was that King David was speaking of God opening his understanding to the Hebrew Scriptures and the Torah) have disappeared entirely in the Hebrews quote. Instead, this New Testament author replaced this expunged clause with the words "But a body you have prepared for Me."
Answer for yourself: What body? Well, this is the body of Jesus because you need a "body" if you are to have an "incarnation" and "infancy stories".
This is but one more startling alteration of the Jewish scriptures out of hundreds that exist and is but another example among hundreds where we find the early emerging non-Jewish Gentile Church rejecting step by step the faith of the mother Jewish Church and in so doing this non-Jewish Gentile Church creates a replacement religion of their own making and in so doing thumb their nose at God while violating His sacred texts as well:
Deut 4:2 2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (KJV)
You just saw this for yourself and this is repeated throughout the Christian Bible and we read these Christian passages today never knowing the truth of what we read and "what we should have read" instead. Behind this deception is the total rejection of "key" Jewish theological religious beliefs and doctrine which had been handed down since Egypt and cherished by the Jewish nation for thousands of years and in their place the "reinterpretation" and "replacement" of then by the emerging antisemitic Gentile Church and their own Bibles.
Ezekiel condemns the doctrine of vicarious atonement. The prophet Ezekiel warned against Christendom's central doctrine that an innocent human being can die for the sins of the wicked.
Throughout the 18th chapter, Ezekiel warned his people that this erroneous teaching that a righteous man could die for another man's sins was contrary to the will of God. The way for the sinful man to come right by God is to turn away from his rebellious ways, repent, and thereby the penitent is assured complete forgiveness. Throughout Ezekiel's uplifting sermon on the forgiveness of sin, blood sacrifices are never mentioned. Ezekiel 18:1-4, 19-23 reads:
"The word of the Lord came to me, saying: "What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel, saying: `The fathers eat sour grapes, and the sons' teeth are set on edge?' As I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For every living soul belongs to Me, the father as well as the son -- they are Mine. Which ever soul sins, it shall die.... Yet you ask: Why did the son not bear the sin of the father? But the son, justice and righteousness did he do, all My decrees did he safeguard and perform them. He shall surely live. The soul that sins, it shall die! The son shall not bear for the sin of the father, nor the father bear for the sin of the son. The righteousness of the righteous person shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked person shall be upon him. As for the wicked man, if he should turn away from all his sins which he did, and safeguard all My decrees, and do justice and righteousness; he shall surely live. He will not die. All his transgressions which he committed will not be remembered against him. For the righteousness which he did, he shall live. Do I desire at all the death of the wicked man -- the words of my Lord, God -- is it not rather his return from his ways, that he might live."
Answer for yourself: Ever read the Prophets? Every read about the future and the Biblical Festivals in the "world to come"? If Jesus was the final sacrifice, why is the sacrificial system returning as found in the Prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures? That should give you cause to think as well as well if this Jesus is the final atonement for sin when these same Hebrew Scriptures teach that the world will be partaking of them.
In spite of what we have learned so far the New Testament continue to teach otherwise and is clear that the animal sacrificial system never could atone for sin in any permanent way, and indeed the entire purpose of the animal sacrificial system was, in the language of the Book of Hebrews, supposedly foreshadowing Jesus' death on the cross (Hebrews 10:1). But we have seen that this not so since the animal sacrificial system did not apply to "intentional sin" above let alone the other issues addressed above. The New Testament is still not telling the whole truth on the matter.
Hebrews 10:4 insists that the animal sacrificial system had no lasting value. "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins." Of course we have now learned that this is true; the animal's death and its blood but was a representation of the sacrificer's blood (the animals Soul represented before God the Soul of the repentant sinner after he had laid his hands upon the animal before its death). This statement in Hebrews 10:4 was however a necessary assertion for the author of Hebrews because if the animal sacrifices really worked, then all should wonder why Jesus' death was yet a necessary part of Christian doctrine as it is today. The author makes it appear that it should have been sufficient to keep bringing animal offerings but as we have seen the sacrificial system was not about the "animal" but about man and his animal nature as it repented from its bent toward sin and in so doing purging his Soul of guilt and receiving forgiveness. Such a Soul, once in repentance, was restored to right fellowship with the Creator and this Spiritual Condition was demonstrated publicly to all by the repentant sinner bringing a substitute for his Soul and placing it on the altar with God's Presence and this substitute was the blood (life) not of the repentant sinner but the blood (life) of the animal which he was to sacrifice because this animal had the very life and energy of the person invested in it. The person bringing the animal, or the money he used to buy one, represented his life and energy he had invested in caring for the animal, feeding it, nurturing it, loving it and when offered on the altar the animal and its "soul" carried a part of the repentant sinners' very "life" and "energy" as well to the altar. So by proxy the animal was a fitting picture of the Soul of the person brining the sacrifice after his repentance for the sins of ignorance which often he knew not but desired to atone for as commanded by God in Leviticus 5.
The New Testament therefore repeatedly declares that Jesus was the final sacrifice for all time (Romans 6:10; Hebrews 9:12; 10:10; 10:18) and there would no longer be any future need for the return of the animal sacrificial system. This doctrine, however, completely contradicts the words of the prophets who clearly foretold that the animal sacrificial system would return in the messianic age (Jeremiah 33:17-18; Zachariah 14:21; Ezekiel 43-44). Christians often try to explain this problem away by claiming that the reason animal sacrifices will return is to point back to Jesus. This response, however, is a rationalization that is not even used in the New Testament, and thoroughly contradicts the statements in Romans and Hebrews. Moreover, this response makes little sense.
There were other means of atonement.
"And Moses said unto Aaron, 'Take a censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on incense, and go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them: for there is wrath gone out from [YHWH]; the plague is begun.' And Aaron took as Moses commanded, and ran into the midst of the congregation; and, behold, the plague was begun among the people: and he put on incense, and made an atonement for the people." (Numbers 16:46-47)
Here, incense can be used to atone for sins in the same manner as the blood sacrifices of animals. Notice what else could be used in place of blood:
"The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto [YHWH], to make an atonement for your souls. And thou shalt take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto the children of Israel before [YHWH], to make an atonement for your souls." (Exodus 30:15-16)
The phrase "to make atonement for your souls" in these verses is the same expression as in Leviticus 17:11:
"We have therefore brought an oblation for [YHWH], what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets, to make an atonement for our souls before [YHWH]." Numbers 31:50)
In these passages, money could be used to make atonement for the children of Israel. The principle here is not that atonement can be bought [this was the practice of the great Catholic church whose priests routinely sold forgiveness]. Rather, this is about doing charitable things with money. This is where "tzedekah" and "gemilut hasidim" enters into the picture as other forms of atonement. In this case, the money was to be used for the physical maintenance of the temple building.
In spite of all this evidence and knowledge Christianity continues to teach otherwise never heeding or listening to the Jews and their Hebrew Scriptures which correct all later Greek and English versions of our Bibles. In fact Christianity continues to teach that God justifies the "ungodly" and that the "innocent" can die for the sins of the guilty; the Hebrew Scriptures flatly repudiates such a teaching.
Answer for yourself: Where did this idea originate that one man, or that anyone for that matter, could atone and pay for the sins of one or more people? It should be perfectly clear by now that such notions stem from the Babylonian mystery religion of ancient Mesopotamia. What is certain is that the idea that an innocent person can be killed instead of those who are guilty is not consistent with what the Bible teaches. After the sin of the Golden Calf, the God of Israel was so outraged that His intentions were to totally annihilate and destroy the Israelite people.
Answer for yourself: What does the righteous Moses offers to do? He offers to die in their place (substitutionary atonement).
Notice the response to Moses suggestion: "Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin...; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. And [YHWH] said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book." (Exodus 32:32-33)
Throughout the Bible, Israel's God says that one person cannot die for the sins of another:
"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deuteronomy 24:16)
"But everyone will die for his own sin; each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge" (Jeremiah 31:30)
"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18:20)
"He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous, both of them are an abomination to the Lord" (Proverbs 17:15).
"No man [Jesus included] can by any means redeem his brother, or give to 'God' a ransom for him" (Psalms 49:7)
Unlike the Greek Testament, The Holy Scriptures of the One True God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob clearly teach that we are responsible for our own actions and sins. We alone must account and pay the price. No virgin born savior deity from Babylonian mythology can contradict the clear instructions of the God
Answer for yourself: Now, are you not fully convinced that there are two different and conflicting theologies evident between the Hebrew Old Testament and the New Testament regarding atonement? What other teachings between the Hebrew Old Testament and the New Testament are 180 degrees opposite?
Let us continue in the next and final article in this series.