Why Jews don't believe in JESUS!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dr.Trax
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 68
  • Views Views 14K
Jews said that they are the sons of Ibrahim, or even the sons of God, Al Qur'an stated this, and here's the fact about them:


Al Baqarah(2):131 Behold! his Lord said to him: "Bow (thy will to me)" He said: "I bow (my will) to the Lord and Cherisher of the universe."

The follower of Ibrahim or sons of Ibrahim are the people who are Muslim(bow to the will of Allah and they bow in their pray).


132 And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons and so did Jacob; "O my sons! Allah hath chosen the faith for you; then die not except in the faith of Islam."

Din of Ibrahim must be preserved until die, if they really claim as the sons of Ibrahim.


133 Were ye witnesses when death appeared before Jacob? Behold he said to his sons: "What will ye worship after me?" They said: "We shall worship thy Allah and the Allah of thy fathers of Abraham Isma`il and Isaac the one (true) Allah to Him we bow (in Islam)."

Sons Ibrahim 'alaihi Salaam worship only Allahu Ta'ala.


134 That was a People that hath passed away. They shall reap the fruit of what they did and ye of what ye do! of their merits there is no question in your case!

Ummah of Bani Isra'il hath their Sunnah, Manhaj and Syari'at, while ummah of Muhammad Shalallahu 'alaihi wa Sallam also have their own given by Allahu Ta'ala.


135 They say: "Become Jews or Christians if ye would be guided (to salvation)." Say thou: "Nay! (I would rather) the religion of Abraham the true and he joined not gods with Allah."

136 Say ye: "We believe in Allah and the revelation given to us and to Abraham Isma`il Isaac Jacob and the Tribes and that given to Moses and Jesus and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord we make no difference between one and another of them and we bow to Allah (in Islam)."

Sons of Ibrahim do not differ between the Prophets, and do not praise Muhammad Shalallahu 'alaihi wa Sallam more than what he was.


137 So if they believe as ye believe they are indeed on the right path; but if they turn back it is they who are in schism; but Allah will suffice thee as against them and He is the All-Hearing the All- Knowing.

138 (Our religion is) the baptism of Allah; and who can baptize better than Allah? and it is He whom we worship.

Allahu Ta'ala decided how the ways of worship for Muslim.


139 Say: Will ye dispute with us about Allah seeing that He is our Lord and your Lord; that we are responsible for our doings and ye for yours; and that we are sincere (in our faith) in Him?

Allahu Ta'ala told ummah of Rasulullah not to compare themselves with ummah before them unless Allahu Ta'ala stated the comparation between that ummah with this ummah.


140 Or do ye say that Abraham Isma`il Isaac Jacob and the Tribes were Jews or Christians? Say: Do ye know better than Allah? Ah! who is more unjust than those who conceal the testimony they have from Allah? But Allah is not unmindful of what ye do!

141 That was a people that hath passed away. They shall reap the fruit of what they did and ye of what ye do! Of their merits there is no question in your case.

Ibrahim and his descendants do not have the fanaticism based on LINEAGE, but if the people have good DEEDS, then it will SUPPORT their lineage.


Assalamu'alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.
 
Last edited:
Two key words would enable the honest researcher of what is the reality of (korban) is:

1- The original meaning of the hebrew word Korban


2- the story of Abel and cain as in Bible and Quran

1- The word Korban shares the Hebrew verb root קרב (QRV),also the Arabic verb root (QRB) with the word for "nearness" or "close,"and suggesting the sacrifice was related to drawing closer to God, a meaning the standard English translations of "sacrifice" or "offering" do not fully convey


2-The first Biblical story of (korban) defined the concept well........ there is not the slightest hint that it was a deal of (blood for sin), as a matter of fact the story shows exactly the opposite.....

Adam knew his wife Eve intimately, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain. She said, "I have had a male child with the LORD's help." 2Then she also gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel became a shepherd of a flock, but Cain cultivated the land. 3In the course of time Cain presented some of the land's produce as an offering to the LORD. 4And Abel also presented [an offering] — some of the firstborn of his flock and their fat portions. The Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, 5but He did not have regard for Cain and his offering. Cain was furious, and he was downcast. 6Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you furious? And why are you downcast?[32] 7If you do right, won't you be accepted? But if you do not do right, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must master it." 8Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. Genesis 4:1-8


The story defined the act as:


1- The korban is a practice of offering valuable things owned by the offerer eg; food, objects,animal etc...

2- The korban is not (a blood for sin deal) :

A-Cain presented some of the land's produce as an offering and not animals to shed their blood....

B- Abel wasn't such wicked person to seek blood for sin deal,he was righteous
Matthew 23:35
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel

C- The reason why God rejected Cain's korban is simply because he didn't do That which is right in the sight of God.

3- The korban here is not , TO APPEASE GOD'S ANGER but rather to TO APPEASE MAN'S MIND
as Abel is a righteous ,by his korban he needs to obtain witness that he was righteous, and a justified person........

the korban been offered here is a question:

God ,Are you satisfied with me? am I righteous
in your eyes? if so show me with my eyes something concrete;eg a qurban consumed by Fire From heaven


in light of all that ,your claim

.
But God introducing blood sacrifice to human kind can be seen as far back as the Old Testament and Cain and Abel's offerings:

proved to be false



.It was not pagan in the beginning, though overtime (and because of the devil's influence)


agree


it became pagan through certain peoples (it was not pagan--for instance--through the Jewish people).


that is a double-faced approach

How changing names ,would change the reality of the practice?!

Jews practiced exactly the same thing that pagans practiced,being Jews doesn't make the pagan act to be different in the eyes of God....



well,just let's not go far from the thread original topic.....

you haven't answered my question yet:

what other Old Testament passages you think been fulfilled by Jesus (as depicted by the NT writers)?

peace
 
Last edited:
Well, you're not going to convince me of something like that, not when blood sacrifice is a pillar of the Old Testament. I've already told you that I didn't want to continue, because even if I knew all the answers to your questions and I answered them perfectly, it would still take divine intervention for you to come to know Christ. So this will be my last response. Take care.
 
Fedos

I understand your feelings well..

sadly,you have been victimized by the Sunday preaching

I showed you irrefutable proofs that the human concept of blood atonement is derived from paganism and has no dependable textual support
Though Allah stayed his hand, for what purpose, beyond a test of obedience, was Ibrahim's sacrifice of Ishamael to be enacted?

The Jews believed in and practiced blood atonement based on instructions that God gave to Moses preserved in verses like this:
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. (Leviticus 17:11)

Are you proposing that this too was of pagan origin and not Allah's direction?
 
Though Allah stayed his hand, for what purpose, beyond a test of obedience, was Ibrahim's sacrifice of Ishamael to be enacted?

The Jews believed in and practiced blood atonement based on instructions that God gave to Moses preserved in verses like this:

Are you proposing that this too was of pagan origin and not Allah's direction?]

Topic Title is: Why Jews don't believe in JESUS!


BackOnTopic:
out of context distortion said:
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.(Leviticus 17:11)

"By loving kindness and truth, iniquity is atoned for..." (Proverbs 16:6).

"If you return to G-d you will be restored; if you remove unrighteousness far from your tent...then you will delight in G-d..." (Job 22:23-27).

"Depart from evil, and do good, so you will abide forever." (Psalm 37:27, cf. Ezekiel 33, Zechariah 1:3, Jeremiah 26:13).

For I desire loving-kindness, and not sacrifices, and knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. (Hoshea 6:6.)

2 Take words with you and return to the LORD.
Say to him: "Forgive all our sins and receive us graciously, that we may offer the fruit of our lips.3 Assyria cannot save us; we will not mount war-horses. We will never again say 'Our gods' to what our own hands have made, for in you the fatherless find compassion." (
Hoshea 14:2-3:)


To do justice and judgement is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.
(Proverbs 21:3)
__________________

Are Christians consistent with the Jewish Bible when they claim that atonement is only possible with a blood sacrifice? Did the Rabbis just make up the idea that we can restore our relationship with G-d through prayer and repentance? YOU DECIDE! (from: jewishpassion)

Leviticus 17:11

By Rabbi Michael Skobac
One of the cornerstones of Christian theology is that the only way to achieve atonement for sins is through the offering of a sacrifice whose blood is shed in our place. The Greek Testament makes this very clear in Hebrews 9:22 "...without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Is this idea consistent with the teachings of the Tanach, or do the Jewish and Christian bibles diverge on this issue? Christians generally insist that the absolute need for a vicarious blood sacrifice is rooted in the Torah, and cite as proof Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul."

If you are a Christian, or are a Jew who has been approached by Christian missionaries, you have probably heard many sermons on the topic of atonement, and have undoubtedly read many studies which support the contention that there is no atonement without blood. Of course you are also aware that this is a teaching which is not shared by traditional Jews. Have you ever wondered how they could reject what to others seems so clear? This study has been prepared to give you the opportunity to consider a different perspective on the vital issue of atonement.
ANOTHER LOOK AT LEVITICUS 17:11

You might remember that in junior high school, we were often given an assignment to write the title for a story; what is the central idea of a passage. Let's look at Leviticus 17:11 in context:
"And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among you, who consumes any blood, I will set My face against that person who consumes blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul. Therefore, I say to the children of Israel, `No one among you shall consume blood, nor shall any stranger who sojourns among you consume blood.'"
What should immediately be apparent is that the topic of this passage is not how to secure atonement from sins, but the prohibition against consuming blood. We are told parenthetically that the reason for this prohibition is that the blood contains the vitality of the animal (cf. Genesis 9:4, Deuteronomy 12:23) and consequently, when we bring an animal sacrifice, its blood serves as the atoning agent, and not another part of its body. Since Leviticus 17 doesn't come to teach us about the principles of atonement, we will have to look elsewhere for the Bible's most important teaching on how to repair our relationships with G-d.

Before proceeding, let's consider another point about what is, and what is not being said in Leviticus 17:11. The passage does say that since blood symbolizes the life of the animal, G-d has given it to us as a means of atoning for our sins. But does the verse clearly teach that it is the only means G-d has provided to make atonement? As with any other Biblical study, we will have to examine this question in light of the Bible as a whole. But for now, we should note that our verse merely says that blood can serve as an atonement. It is an effective means of atonement, but by no means the only form of atonement.

In the Torah, blood sacrifices were not the only path to atonement; there were other ways to achieve forgiveness. For example, incense served to atone for the people in Numbers 16:46-47, and giving charity is described in Exodus 30:15-16 and Numbers 31:50 as `making atonement for your souls' - the same expression as in Leviticus 17:11. In reality, blood sacrifices were the least effective of all the means of atonement mentioned in the Bible. One important limitation to the effectiveness of sacrifices is that they were only brought for unintentional sins (ie. someone didn't know that kindling a fire was prohibited on the Sabbath, or they were aware of this, but thought it was Sunday when kindling the fire). Sacrifices did not help to atone for sins that were done intentionally (Leviticus 4, and Numbers 15:22-31).

Examining the Christian interpretation of Leviticus 17:11 generates some serious problems. What happens if someone can't afford to purchase an animal for his sin offering? Is it possible that G-d would institute a system of atonement that could only be used by the wealthy? The Torah took this into account and allowed the poor person to bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons if he couldn't afford a lamb (Leviticus 5:7). However, what if someone was so destitute, that he couldn't afford even these small birds?
"But if his means are insufficient for two turtledoves or two young pigeons, then for his offering for that which he has sinned, he shall bring the tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall not put oil on it or place incense on it, for it is a sin offering." (Leviticus 5:11)
Since flour could be used for a sin offering, it is clear that blood was not a prerequisite for atonement. Another example will drive home the point. The proposition that only blood sacrifices could secure atonement creates a dilemma. Could it be that G-d would set up a system of atonement that wouldn't be available to all people at all times? While the Temple stood, sacrifices did serve as part of the atonement process. But what is the fate of Jewish people who don't have access to the Temple? What were the Jewish people supposed to do after 586 BCE when the first Temple was destroyed and they were exiled to Babylon? What did the Jewish people do in the times of the Macabees when the Syrian-Greeks were in control of the Temple and didn't allow sacrifices?

Christians erroneously claim that Rabbinic Judaism came up with novel, non-Biblical measures to deal with atonement after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 CE. Actually, it wasn't Talmudic innovation at all- the Bible anticipated the possibility of the cessation of sacrifices. When King Solomon finally laid the finishing touches on the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, he inaugurated it with a moving dedication speech (I Kings 8; II Chronicles 6). In this lengthy speech of almost 50 verses, you will notice that Solomon doesn't speak about sacrifices at all! This omission would be strange if the most crucial part of the Temple were the sacrifices. Actually, the central focus of the Temple was the Holy Ark (Exodus 25) containing the Torah. The Temple was first and foremost a symbol of G-d's presence and revelation to the Jewish people (I Kings 8:13, Exodus 25:8).
Towards the end of his speech, Solomon deals with the possibility of the Jewish people being denied access to the Temple in the eventuality that they are exiled from the land of Israel.
"If they return to You with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their enemies who have taken them captive, and pray to You toward their land which You have given to their fathers, the city which You have chosen, and the house which I have built for Your name; then hear their prayer and their supplication in heaven Your dwelling place, and maintain their cause, and forgive Your people who have sinned against You and all their transgressions which they have transgressed against You..." (I Kings 8:46-50).
This seminal passage puts the spotlight on the Christian misunderstanding of Leviticus 17:11. The Bible is clearly teaching that sacrifices weren't necessary in order to atone for sins. Prayer and repentance are cited here as effective means for securing atonement. Certainly, when the Temple stood, and one could afford an animal, a sacrifice was brought as part of the atonement process for unintentional sins. Leviticus 17:11 teaches that when we bring such an animal as a sacrifice, we aren't allowed to consume its blood, because as the life force, it is the part of the animal that affects our atonement.

Christian dogma holds that the crucifixion of Jesus at Calvary served as the final atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. Christianity insists that this is not just a Pauline innovation, but reflects the requirements of the Jewish Bible, and tries to establish this by pointing to Leviticus 17:11 as the key to atonement in the Tanach. However, if this passage is examined, it will be clear that Jesus could never serve as an atoning sacrifice. Obviously, the shedding of blood by pricking my finger or killing my cat won't fulfill the Biblical requirements for atonement. The Torah delineates how sacrifices are to be brought.
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls..."
Clearly, not any spilled blood is accepted by the Torah as a sacrifice. Jesus' crucifixion may qualify as an atonement according to the Greek Testament, but since his blood was not offered on the altar, it is not in line with what the Torah mandates.

There are actually several other factors which would render the crucifixion of Jesus an unacceptable sacrifice. According to the Biblical rules in Leviticus, all sacrifices had to be offered by a Priest who descends from Aaron. This was not the case in the death of Jesus, who was crucified by Roman soldiers. Additionally, Biblical law prohibited any sacrifice which was blemished or maimed (Leviticus 22:19-21). However, prior to his crucifixion, Jesus was whipped and beaten (Matthew 27:26, Mark 15:19, John 19:3) which would render him unfit. Furthermore, Jesus was circumcised in the flesh, which according to Philippians 3:2 and Galatians 5:12 is considered mutilation.

Frequently, Christians react to this line of reasoning by protesting that it is improper to be so literal, and that Jesus' death was more of a symbolic or spiritual sacrifice. This would be fine if the Bible provided for such ethereal offerings, but such is not the case. The Greek Testament, however, does insist that Jesus was a real sacrifice, literally fulfilling the Biblical requirements of such:
"But coming to Jesus, when they saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs...in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled: `Not a bone of him shall be broken.'" (John 19:33-36)
The Gospel of John portrays Jesus as the Paschal lamb which was not supposed to have any of its bones broken (Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12). Since the author of John insists that Jesus was a real sacrifice to the extent that the Biblical rules of the Passover were fulfilled in him, we can't dismiss the problems cited above as legalistic nit-picking.

One wonders why the Greek Testament chose to type Jesus as a Paschal lamb rather than the sacrifice for the Day of Atonement. We know from Exodus 12 that the Passover sacrifice did not serve as an atonement for sins, it commemorates the exodus from Egypt. (Even when the lamb was slaughtered in Egypt and its blood smeared on the doorposts, it did not serve to atone for the sins of anyone. It was a sign for the angel of death to pass over Jewish homes during the plague of the first born. The only people in danger were first born males, the blood wasn't a help to other people in the family, and didn't serve as an atonement for the first born). A more fitting prototype for Jesus would have been the Yom Kippur sacrifice, which was an atonement for the sins of all the people. It is interesting that according to Leviticus 16:10,21-22, the animal which effectuated the atonement for the sins of the nation was not killed, but sent live out into the desert. Again, the shedding of blood is not a sine qua non for atonement.

The Greek Testament went to some great lengths to demonstrate that the atoning death of Jesus was predicated upon the Jewish Bible. In the book of Hebrews, a verse from the book of Psalms is quoted as evidence that the sacrifice of Jesus was part of G-d's original plan for the world.
"Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, but a body You have prepared for me" (Hebrews 10:5 referring to Psalms 40:6).
In verse 10 of our passage from Hebrews, we are told that the body spoken of refers to the body of Jesus. However, the Greek Testament took some great liberties in quoting from the book of Psalms, which never mentions a body being prepared:
"Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired; my ears You have opened; Burnt offerings and sin offerings You have not required" (Psalm 40:6).
The author of Romans asserts that the Jewish scriptures spoke about the Messiah coming in order to eradicate sin from Israel:
"And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written,`The deliverer will come from Zion and remove ungodliness from Jacob'." (Romans 11:26 citing Isaiah 59:20)
However, checking the original source in Isaiah reveals the flawed foundation of the claim made in the book of Romans.
"And a redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression, says the L-rd."
Isaiah didn't teach that the Messiah's purpose is to remove sin; rather, he will come to the Jewish people when they show themselves worthy by turning away from sin.
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT VICARIOUS ATONEMENT?

One wonders why throughout the four Gospels, Jesus never speaks about his death serving as a sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world. Is the idea that an innocent person can be killed instead of those who are guilty consistent with what the Bible teaches? After the sin of the Golden Calf, G-d expressed His intention to destroy the Jewish people. Moses intercedes, and offers to die in their place. In response, G-d says "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book!" (Exodus 32:32-33). Throughout the Bible, G-d 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, II Kings 14:6).
"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).
"No man can by any means redeem his brother, or give to G-d a ransom for him" (Psalms 49:7).
"So you shall not pollute the land in which you are; for blood pollutes the land and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who has shed it!" (Numbers 35:33).
Although Romans 4:5 says that Jesus justifies the ungodly, the Tanach teaches that "He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous, both of them are an abomination to theL-rd" (Proverbs 17:15).
If indeed, Jesus came as the final sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world, why does the Tanach predict that the Temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices resumed?
"Even those I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; for My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples." (Isaiah 56:7). "From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia My worshipers, My dispersed ones will bring My offerings." (Zephaniah 3:10)
"All the flocks of Kedar will be gathered together to you, the rams of Nebaioth will minister to you; they will go up with acceptance on My altar, and I shall glorify My glorious house." (Isaiah 60:7)
"And I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will place them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever." (Ezekiel 37:26)
"And He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they may present to the L-rd offerings in righteousness. Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasant to the L-rd, as in the days of old and as in former years." (Malachi 3:3-4)
"And every cooking pot in Jerusalem and in Judah will be holy to the L-rd of hosts; and all who sacrifice will come and take of them and boil in them." (Zechariah 14:21) "And it shall be the princes part to provide the burnt offerings, the grain offerings, and the libations...to make atonement for the house of Israel." (Ezekiel 45:17)
The Christian claim that our sins can only be forgiven if blood is shed on our behalf also seems to limit the power of G-d. It's ludicrous to say that G-d`s ability to forgive us is dependent on anything. One of the most basic teachings in the Bible is that since G-d is merciful, He often forgives us simply because He is merciful. "Who is a G-d like You, who pardons iniquity and passes over the rebellious act of the remnant of His possession? He does not retain His anger forever, because He delights in unchanging love." (Micah 7:18; cf.Psalm 103:7-18). Even when we don't seek G-d appropriately, He has the ability to reach out to us with love and forgive us:
"Their heart was not steadfast toward Him, nor were they faithful in His covenant. But He, being compassionate, forgave their iniquity...remembering that they were but flesh." (Psalms 78:36-39)
"You have not brought Me the sheep of your burnt offerings...or the fat of your sacrifices, but you have burdened Me with your sins...Nevertheless, I will wipe out your transgressions for My own sake, and I will not remember your sins." (Isaiah 43:23-25)
THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF ATONEMENT

One of the clearest indications that Christianity is off base in its insistence on the centrality of blood sacrifices is that none of the prophets speaks about it. There isn't one instance in the prophetic books where the Jewish people are told that in order to get right with G-d they need to get covered by the blood. If that's the case, what is the fundamental teaching of the Tanach on the issue of atonement? What theme is reiterated time and again by the holy prophets in the Jewish Bible?
"That every man will turn from his evil way, then I will forgive their iniquity and their sin." (Jeremiah 36:3).
"Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return to the L-rd, and He will have compassion on him; and to our G-d, for He will abundantly pardon." (Isaiah 55:7).
"I acknowledged my sin to You, and my iniquity I did not hide; I said, `I will confess my transgressions to the L-rd', and You did forgive the guilt of my sin." (Psalm 32:5).
"And if My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." (II Chronicles 7:14). "But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die. All his transgressions which he has committed will not be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has practiced he shall live...When a wicked man turns away from his wickedness which he has committed and practices justice and righteousness, he will save his life...Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you (Ezekiel 18:21- 22,27,30).
"By lovingkindness and truth iniquity is atoned for..." (Proverbs 16:6).
"If you return to G-d you will be restored; if you remove unrighteousness far from your tent...then you will delight in G-d..." (Job 22:23-27).
"Depart from evil, and do good, so you will abide forever." (Psalm 37:27, cf. Ezekiel 33, Zechariah 1:3, Jeremiah 26:13).
The central teaching of the Bible is that only a break with our past and a sincere turning in repentance can restore our relationships with G-d. If I go off the path, I have to put myself back on track, and G-d will forgive me. Even when sacrifices were offered, they in and of themselves didn't effect atonement. The sacrifice was part of the process, it helped bring us to the core of atonement which is achieved by TESHUVAH, returning to G-d by forsaking our evil ways and praying for forgiveness. One of the main teachings of the prophets was to chide Jewish people who thought that sacrifices were the essential element of atonement:
"What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me? says the L-rd. I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed cattle. And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs, or goats...Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; seek justice, reprove the ruthless, defend the orphan, plead for the widow. Come let us reason together says the L-rd, `Though your sins are as scarlet, they will be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they will be like wool, if you consent and obey..." (Isaiah 1:11-18).
"The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the L-rd." (Proverbs 15:8).
"To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the L-rd than sacrifice." (Proverbs 21:3). "For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of G-d rather than burnt offerings." (Hoseah 6:6).
"Has the L-rd as great a delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the L-rd? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken more than the fat of rams." (I Samuel 15:22).
"With what shall I come to the L-rd, and bow myself before the G-d on high? Shall I come to Him with burnt offerings, with yearling calves? Does the L-rd take delight in thousands of rams, in ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my firstborn for my rebellious acts, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the L-rd require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your G-d." (Micah 6:6-8,cf. Amos 5:22- 24, Jeremiah 7, Psalm 69:31-32).
Since repentance, and not blood is the Biblical form of atonement, we now understand how in I Kings 8, Solomon explained that even if the Jewish people don't have access to the Temple, they still have access to G-d. This will illuminate a famous story found in the book of Jonah. G-d sends Jonah to the evil city of Ninveh to warn them of their impending destruction. Jonah doesn't come into the city and tell the people that unless they begin offering sacrifices they are doomed. Their response to his warnings is to repent: they fast, pray, and turn from their evil. What is G-d's response?
"When G-d saw their deeds that they turned from their wicked way, then G-d relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them, and He did not do it." (Jonah 3:10).
In similar fashion, Daniel advised king Nebuchadnezzar on how to atone for his transgressions:
"Therefore, O king, may my advice be pleasing to you: Redeem your sins by doing righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor." (Daniel 4:27).
This principle will also help explain a passage in the book of Hoseah. Hoseah was a prophet to the 10 northern tribes in the kingdom of Israel during a time when there was a civil war going on between them and the two tribes of the kingdom of Judah in the south. Because of the strife, the tribes up north couldn't get to the Temple in Jerusalem to offer sacrifices. Did this leave them with no way of atoning for their sins? The prophet advises:
"Return, O Israel, to the L-rd your G-d, For you have stumbled because of your iniquity. Take words with you and return to the L-rd. Say to Him, `Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously, for we will render as bullocks the offerings of our lips'." (Hoseah 14:1-2).
We are able to approach G-d directly with prayer, which is possible at all times; and G-d assures us that sincere prayer can achieve forgiveness for our sins:
"Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O L-rd, the G-d of my salvation. And my tongue shall sing aloud of Your righteousness. O L-rd, open my lips, and my mouth shall show forth Your praise. For You do not delight in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of G-d are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart. These, O G-d, You will not despise." (Psalms 51:14-17, re:II Samuel 12:13).
"I will praise the name of G-d with a song, and will magnify Him with thanksgiving. This shall please the L-rd better than an ox or bullock that has horns and hoofs." (Psalm 69:30-31).
"For You, L-rd, are good, and ready to forgive, and abundant in lovingkindness to all who call upon You. Give ear, O L-rd to my prayer, and give heed to the voice of my supplications." (Psalm 86:5-6).
"And listen to the supplications of Your servant and of Your people Israel, when they pray toward this place; hear from heaven Your dwelling place, hear and forgive." (II Chronicles 6:21).
Are Christians consistent with the Jewish Bible when they claim that atonement is only possible with a blood sacrifice? Did the Rabbis just make up the idea that we can restore our relationship with G-d through prayer and repentance? YOU DECIDE!
 
Last edited:
Though Allah stayed his hand, for what purpose, beyond a test of obedience, was Ibrahim's sacrifice of Ishamael to be enacted?

The Jews believed in and practiced blood atonement based on instructions that God gave to Moses preserved in verses like this:


Are you proposing that this too was of pagan origin and not Allah's direction?



Al Hajj (22):37 It is not their meat nor their blood that reaches Allah: it is your piety that reaches Him: He has thus made them subject to you that ye may glorify Allah for His guidance to you: and proclaim the Good News to all who do right.
 
The Qur'an is not alone in such statements; Jewish prophets had previously provided a correction to the misuse of sacrifices by those who thought that the mere repeitition of them had meaning to God:
For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. (Hosea 6:6)

Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but my ears you have pierced;
burnt offerings and sin offerings
you did not require. (Psalm 40:6)

21I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies.

22Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts.

23Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.

24But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream. (Amos 5:21-24)


Still, such statements doesn't negate that God did give the command to Moses, but they are a reminder that doing them is not to replace a heart turned toward God.
 
Last edited:
out of context distortion (same as a lie as it has been trimmed from both ends to suite the fancy of pagans or polytheists or fraudsters)
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.(Leviticus 17:11)

in context
(possibly true as it is older than the above lie, which is taken out from middle of the passage)
"And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among you, who consumes any blood, I will set My face against that person who consumes blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul. Therefore, I say to the children of Israel, `No one among you shall consume blood, nor shall any stranger who sojourns among you consume blood.'"
What should immediately be apparent is that the topic of this passage is not how to secure atonement from sins, but the prohibition against consuming blood.

The Qur'an is not alone in such statements; Jewish prophets had previously provided a correction to the misuse of sacrifices by those who thought that the mere repeitition of them had meaning to God:






Still, such statements doesn't negate that God did give the command to Moses, but they are a reminder that doing them is not to replace a heart turned toward God.
only on LI, will such trickery be tolerated and with such lamentably inadequate level of moderation (refereeing to make sure that people are playing fair) I give up

http://www.islamicboard.com/1081643-post45.html
 
Last edited:
only on LI, will such trickery be tolerated and with such lamentably inadequate level of moderation (refereeing to make sure that people are playing fair) I give up


This is comparative religion, emphasis on the comparative part. There is no trickery involved, I don't even know what trick it is that you might be accusing me of. All I know is that it has been asserted that any concept of blood atonement is pagan in origin. I and others have tried to show that it was a part of Jewish worship and practice, and that these Jews believed that it came from God through his commands to Moses. You then showed how Allah recognizes sacrifices but the import of them doesn't come from the sacrifice itself, but from the heart directed toward Allah. (Or at least that is what I understood from what you presented.) And I responded by showing this to be the same within Judaism, but asserting that this doesn't change the understanding that God initiated and called for the actions as well.

Your point that the verse in question is not so much about blood atonement as it is about not eating blood is much better taken. I would agree that not eating blood is the larger issue of the verse. But I still see contained within this larger view the assertion that such as thing as blood atonement does in fact exist. Without the pre-existing concept of blood atonement being acceptable to God, it makes no sense it to be mentioned in the explanation of the rules regarding the avoidance of consuming blood. Given that God, not Moses, is presented as the author of this commentary, then it follows that this passage presents the idea of blood atonement as originating with God and not pagan societies which may have also adopted it. The other option, one I'm sure that our atheist friends might find more compelling, is that Moses (or some other scribe) merely injected these thoughts that he had copied from paganism into the passage and made them look like they had come from God. This, of course, fits with the Islamic idea that all other scripture but their own is tampered with. But that is a different subject.
 
This is comparative religion, emphasis on the comparative part. There is no trickery involved, I don't even know what trick it is that you might be accusing me of. All I know is that it has been asserted that any concept of blood atonement is pagan in origin. I and others have tried to show that it was a part of Jewish worship and practice, and that these Jews believed that it came from God through his commands to Moses. You then showed how Allah recognizes sacrifices but the import of them doesn't come from the sacrifice itself, but from the heart directed toward Allah. (Or at least that is what I understood from what you presented.) And I responded by showing this to be the same within Judaism, but asserting that this doesn't change the understanding that God initiated and called for the actions as well.

Your point that the verse in question is not so much about blood atonement as it is about not eating blood is much better taken. I would agree that not eating blood is the larger issue of the verse. But I still see contained within this larger view the assertion that such as thing as blood atonement does in fact exist. Without the pre-existing concept of blood atonement being acceptable to God, it makes no sense it to be mentioned in the explanation of the rules regarding the avoidance of consuming blood. Given that God, not Moses, is presented as the author of this commentary, then it follows that this passage presents the idea of blood atonement as originating with God and not pagan societies which may have also adopted it. The other option, one I'm sure that our atheist friends might find more compelling, is that Moses (or some other scribe) merely injected these thoughts that he had copied from paganism into the passage and made them look like they had come from God. This, of course, fits with the Islamic idea that all other scripture but their own is tampered with. But that is a different subject.

the 5 books of OT was not written by Muusa 'alaihi Salaam, not from anybody I got that impression, from the sentence I founded on the last page of the book, which told "Moses died... ....." Muusa 'alaihi Salaam couldn't be living to write about his death.
 
Last edited:
the 5 books of OT was not written by Muusa 'alaihi Salaam, not from anybody I got that impression, from the sentence I founded on the last page of the book, which told "Mosed died... ....." Muusa 'alaihi Salaam couldn't be living to write about his death.

yes brother Abdul Thayyib .....

I'm writing a post directed at grace-seeker and such point you mentioned is included in...


I hope seeker ,wait till I finish the post ...
and comment on both of us......


the authority of Leviticus 17:11 is not the only problem to the believe of the blood atonement but also several others will be highlighted in my next post inshaAllah....

grace-seeker ..be patient to have the full vision...


peace
 
Last edited:
grace-seeker ..be patient to have the full vision...

No problem. I would play the theme to Jeopardy (from the final question round) as you write, but I wouldn't want to be insulting to those who understand music as haraam.:D
 
Last edited:
Some reasons not to believe in the (blood for sin) dogma



The Jews believed in and practiced blood atonement based on instructions that God gave to Moses preserved in verses like this:


Are you proposing that this too was of pagan origin and not Allah's direction?



Exactly, I propose that the concept of Leviticus 17:11 based on both Paganism and the priests intent upon protecting their turf and ensuring their livelihood with a continual supply of food that they would take from the altar sacrifices.....

Details:


Who wrote the Leviticus ?


- The Pentateuch(including the Leviticus ) in its present form does not present itself as a complete literary production of Moses. It contains an account of Moses' death, it tells the story of his life in the third person and in an indirect form, and the last four books do not exhibit the literary form of memoirs of the great lawgiver; besides, the expression "God said to Moses" does not prove that Moses himself codified in the Pentateuch the various laws promulgated by him. (The catholic encyclopedia)



- Deuteronomy 34:10 This states "There has never been another prophet like Moses..."a passage written long after Moses' death

- from the very early time ,some rabbis and philosophers asked how Moses could have described his own death, or given a list of the kings of Edom before those kings ever lived,Among the more recent Jewish writers several have adopted the results of the critics, thus abandoning the tradition of their forefathers.

- "..there is hardly a biblical scholar in the world actively working on the [authorship] problem who would claim that the Five Books of Moses were written by Moses." R.E. Friedman.


- Leviticus is principally about priestly ritiuals and rules. It is considered to be almost entirely by the Priestly source, written during or after the Babylonian Exile of the sixth century BCE."Testament: the Bible and History", by John Romer (1996).


- biblical scholars have regarded Leviticus as being almost entirely a product of the priestly source, originating amongst the Aaronid priesthood c 550-400 BC. Leviticus consists of several layers of laws. The base of this accretion is the Holiness Code, regarded as an early independent document with a faint relationship with the Covenant Code presented earlier in the bible.
Wellhausen regarded the Priestly source as a later, rival, version of the stories contained within JE, the Holiness Code thus being the law code that the priestly source presented as being dictated to Moses at Sinai, in the place of the Covenant Code. Different writers inserted laws, some from earlier independent collections. These additional laws, in critical scholarship, are those which subsequently formed the Priestly Code, and thus the other portion of Leviticus." (Wikipedia)


- From what has been said concerning the absence of ch. xvi. from the Pentateuch of Nehemiah it is clear that some of the material of Leviticus was added to it later than Nehemiah's time. It is probable that P in its main features was in the hands of Ezra and Nehemiah. Leviticus is, however, not the work of the P who wrote the account of the sacred institutions, but of an editor who dislocated that work at many points, and who combined with it the Holiness Code and other elements.(Jewish Encyclopedia)




Who adopted who,Jews or Pagans?


- Animal sacrifices were common throughout the Ancient Near East, as well as some of the Mediterranean islands. For example the Minoan culture of Phaistos on Crete reveals basins for animal sacrifice dating to the period 2000 to 1700 BC.
The practice of sacrifice is found in the oldest human records. The archaeological record contains human and animal corpses with sacrificial marks long before any written records of the practice. Sacrifices are a common theme in most religions, though the frequency of animal, and especially human(Wikipedia)

- Maimonides, a medieval Jewish scholar, drew on the early critiques of the need for sacrifice, taking the view that God always held sacrifice inferior to prayer and philosophical meditation. However, God understood that the Israelites were used to the animal sacrifices that the surrounding pagan tribes used as the primary way to commune with their gods. As such, in Maimonides' view, it was only natural that Israelites would believe that sacrifice would be a necessary part of the relationship between God and man. Maimonides concludes that God's decision to allow sacrifices was a concession to human psychological limitations. It would have been too much to have expected the Israelites to leap from pagan worship to prayer and meditation in one step. In his Guide to the Perplexed he writes:
"But the custom which was in those days general among men, and the general mode of worship in which the Israelites were brought up consisted in sacrificing animals... It was in accordance with the wisdom and plan of God...that God did not command us to give up and to discontinue all these manners of service. For to obey such a commandment would have been contrary to the nature of man, who generally cleaves to that to which he is used; it would in those days have made the same impression as a prophet would make at present [the 12th Century] if he called us to the service of God and told us in His name, that we should not pray to God nor fast, nor seek His help in time of trouble; that we should serve Him in thought, and not by any action." (Book III, Chapter 32. Translated by M. Friedlander, 1904, The Guide for the Perplexed, Dover Publications, 1956 edition.)


obviously The Jewish writer is aware of the pagan connection with the blood for sin animal sacrifice, but as A Jew he tried his best to reason how God would order pagan based practice........

anyway
is there any other explanation why would the Leviticus contain such laws if not truly inspired from God?

2 keys


1- The Babylonian(and other pagans) influence on the Levitical ritual.

2- priests looking to ensure their livelihood.



- It is commonly supposed that the priestly laws were collected in Babylonia and were brought back to Palestine by Ezra. Haupt goes so far as to claim that the Levitical ritual is influenced by Babylonian institutions (comp. Haupt, "Babylonian Elements in the Levitical Ritual," in "Jour. Bib. Lit." xix. 55-81)(Jewish Encyclopedia)

- The third paragraph of section vi lists the physical defects which bar a man from serving as a priest,a similar rule in Babylonia kept priests with bodily defects from active services .The Origin And History Of Hebrew Law
By J. M. Powis Smith




- For more than 25 centuries, we Jews have stood atremble before the highest of benches during the first days of the seventh lunar month, which we call Tishrei. The peculiar rites we perform during the Ten Days of Penitence are designed to ensure us another year of life. That, at least, is the belief of the 15% of Jews who think that God simply dictated the Torah and all Jewish laws — even those laws promulgated by the rabbis in the Middle Ages — to Moses at Mount Sinai. The remaining 85% of us, however, might be comforted to know that Jews haven’t been the only nation performing such elaborate rituals of sin-purging around this time of year.… We might have our Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur in the month of Tishrei, but our extinct Babylonian cousins celebrated Akitu and Kuppuru in the month of Tashritu. Many differences of ritual and theology existed between Babylonians and Jews. While the Babylonians worshipped a pantheon of gods led by Marduk, we have only one. Our autumnal High Holy Days last 10 days, but they had 12. But the parallels are truly intriguing. First there is the obvious similarity of names above. Secondly, both Jews and Babylonians saw the beginning of the seventh month as the world’s birthday. Third, both observed two New Year celebrations, just as the Torah instructs us; the other was held at the onset of the first month, Nisanu, just before our Passover. Fourth is the Kuppuru rite, in which a ritually slaughtered animal carcass is deployed and its blood scattered to purge demons and clear impurities from the temple of Marduk for the upcoming year, much as ancient Israel’s high priest did in the Yom Kippur ritual recalled in our late-morning Avodah service. While some of us might regard the jury as still out on the efficacy of the carcass in demon-purging, there is a further, striking parallel to Yom Kippur’s scapegoat ritual as described in Leviticus 16. Our ancestors borrowed a great deal from a towering, imperial Mesopotamian culture that for centuries dominated the Fertile Crescent. That we used Babylonian calendar names is widely known. Semitic peoples had used the lunar calendar from time immemorial, but named their months differently. What the (Hebrew-speaking) Canaanites called Aviv, Ziv, Eytanim and Bul, the practical-minded Hebrews first renamed months One, Two, Seven and Eight. The Babylonians called them Nisanu, Ayaru, Tashritu and Archasamnu. In time, our ancestors replaced their numerals with the Babylonian names, many of which are named in honor of Mesopotamian gods. Yet it wasn’t only Nisan, Iyar, Tishrei and Marchesvan that our ancestors borrowed from the Babylonians. Our forefathers took Akitu and the ritual of Kuppuru and reshaped them in their own monotheistic image into what eventually became Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. For centuries, Israelites had two main festivals: Sukkot in the fall and Pesach in the spring — seasonal harvest festivals adopted and adapted from their Canaanite neighbors. New moons were also observed throughout the Levant, as they are today by observant Jews. The new moon on the seventh month, however, was considered, to paraphrase a more recent Mesopotamian dictator, the mother of new moons.
What made the new moon of the seventh month special? Most of all, it was the number seven, which seems to hold deep significance throughout the scriptures. The seventh day is the Sabbath. The seventh year is the Sabbatical Year, while seven years squared is the Jubilee. Even the Yom Kippur rite involves seven splatters of blood. The new moon of the seventh month would likewise have been seen as important.…
Our Pagan Yom Kippur (The day of atonement)By David A.M. Wilensky



Farrell Till said:
In "Yahweh's Quails.", we looked at what Yahweh's "inspired" word said about a near food riot when the people grew weary of manna and demanded meat to eat. the people bellyached at the lack of meat in their diet, but we could hardly suppose that the priests had any complaints. This is because the priests were required to eat many of the sacrifices after they had been offered: "And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin-offering. In the place where the burnt-offering is killed shall the sin-offering be killed before Yahweh. It is most holy. The priest that offers it for sin shall eat it. In the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tent of meeting" (Lev. 6:24-27). Of sacrifices boiled in earthen vessels, "every male among the priests shall eat thereof; it is most holy" (v:29). Every male among the priests shall eat thereof? Well, that would have been four at the most, Aaron and his two sons Eleazar and Ithamar, and then later Eleazar's son Phinehas (Num. 25:10-13).

The same commandment applied to "trespass-offerings." The priest was to "burn them upon the altar" (Lev. 7:5), and then "every male among the priests shall eat thereof; it shall be eaten in a holy place. It is most holy" (v:6). Every male among the priests were to eat of it? Well, there really wasn't much danger that some female priest might eat it, was there? Anyway, if the people were to have meat coming out of their nostrils after the quail episode, with the number of sacrifices that only four priests had to officiate at and dispose of, the priests undoubtedly had meat coming out of every orifice. We have already seen that each priest would have had to officiate at 45 birth-purification sacrifices each day in a population of 3 million that had remained stable over a period of 40 years. But this was only one of many types of sacrifices. In the Hebrew sacrificial system a sin offering had to be offered each year in remembrance of individual sins (Heb. 10:3). Yahweh was apparently considerate enough not to hold children responsible for their conduct (Num. 14:31-33; Deut. 1:39), but if we assume that about 50% of the wilderness population were adults who would have had to sacrifice sin-offerings in order to comply with Yahweh's law, this would mean that about 1.5 million sin offerings were made each year, even if we allow only one such offering per year per adult. Leviticus 4:1-12 indicates that such offerings were to be made whenever one sinned "unwittingly," so as complicated as Yahweh's legal system was, this could have easily necessitated several sin-offerings per year for most people. However, in deference to Hebrews 10:3 (cited above) and to give inerrantists every benefit of the doubt, we will assume that an adult offered a sin-offering only once per year. These 1.5 million sin offerings per year would have averaged 4,110 per day or 171 every hour of every day. If these were divided evenly among the four priests, each priest would have officiated at 43 sacrifices per hour, if all four of them worked around the clock throughout the year without even taking time to sleep. That would have been quite a task even with an altar a piece for the priests, but, in fact, there was only one altar in the tabernacle (where all offerings had to be made), so this altar would have had to accommodate all 171 sacrifices per hour, that were being offered each hour of every day.
How the priests could have managed this is inconceivable, especially since the sin-offering was a bullock, whose offal had to be carried 1.5 miles BY the priests to be burned outside the camp (Lev. 4:11-12). All this would have been in addition to the birth-purification sacrifices already mentioned, which would have averaged about 45 per day, per priest, and the "trespass-offerings" and meal offerings and burnt-offerings, etc., etc., etc. ad infinitum. The situation is further complication by the fact that the priests were to eat the sin-offerings after they were sacrificed (Lev. 6:24-26), so in addition to officiating at 171 sin-offerings every hour of every day, killing the animal at the altar; separating the fat, kidneys, liver, and other parts that were to be sacrificed on the altar; carrying the offal 1.5 miles to the outside of the camp and burning it, the priests also had to eat the parts that were sacrificed on the altar. Needless to say, weight problems must have plagued those poor priests, but perhaps the excess weight was worked off by the exercise involved in wagging the offal of 43 bullocks 1.5 miles each hour of every day to burn it outside the camp.
Common sense tells us--with the exception of biblical inerrantists--that just four priests could not have eaten all the meat that would have been offered by 1.5 million people offering the sacrifices required of them in these passages. The book of Leviticus has all the earmarks of having been written at a much later date by a priest or priests intent upon protecting their turf and ensuring their livelihood with a continual supply of food that they would take from the altar sacrifices. Unfortunately, these priests made the mistake of putting their sacrificial laws into a setting that made them logistically nonsensical. Anyone who doubts that this book was written by priests looking to ensure their livelihood should read Leviticus carefully (assuming that the boredom can be endured) with a view to noticing how many times the author(s) took care to point out what the priests' share should be of the sacrifices that were brought to the altar. Only a very gullible person could believe that this book accurately portrayed how sacrifices were offered by 3 million people in a desert wilderness and officiated over by just three or four priests. At Least the Priests Had Meat
by Farrell Till



The blood for sin dogma and morality:

A-being unjust

- The dogma is not only a denial of the Mercy of God but also of His Justice. To demand the price of blood in order to forgive the sins of men is to show a complete lack of mercy, and to punish a man who is not guilty for the sins of others, whether the former is willing or not, is the height of injustice.

B- A tool to destroy morality:


No doubt there nothing encouraging to commit sins than believing in such concept .....

and we won't go so far ,The bible itself affirms the negative results of such dogma...

as it encouraged most of the Jews not to act in accord with the precepts of the Torah

Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but my ears you have pierced;
burnt offerings and sin offerings
you did not require. (Psalm 40:6)


With what shall I approach the Lord,
Do homage to God on high?
Shall I approach Him with burnt offerings,
With calves a year old?
Would the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,
With myriads of streams of oil?
Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,
The fruit of my body for my sins?
Man has told you what is good.
But what does the Lord require of you?
Only to do justice
And to love goodness,
And to walk humbly with your God (Micah 6:6-8).


Now let's pause and think for a while...

Are we to believe that . (Leviticus 17:11)it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. and (Micah 6:6-8) for human transgression The Lord require ONLY to do justice And to love goodness,
came from the same source(God)?

Wasn't he satisfied by their corrupted mortality?
yes, he is

but they are not to be blamed ....as he should harvest what he plants....

If he ever give them a blood for sin deal in the right hand , he should expect immorality from their part in return....

It seems that Only a gullible person who would believe that , after Yahweh had showed his true desire not the Sacrifice and offering but justice And to love goodness, would change his mind and be back again to his
(blood for sins) !!!!

but now the dogma been developed to be more damaging to morality...
It is not an animal washed some of your sins...it is someone washed all your sins and in advance !!!!
 
Last edited:
esselamu aleikum

so it is possible that isa (sas) is coming back to earth to bring justice??????
i acually thought muhammad (sas) was the last prophet and the seal?
 
Some reasons not to believe in the (blood for sin) dogma







Exactly, I propose that the concept of Leviticus 17:11 based on both Paganism and the priests intent upon protecting their turf and ensuring their livelihood with a continual supply of food that they would take from the altar sacrifices.....


OK. If that is what you think, then that is what you think. You may even be right. But if so, it would seem that Ibrahim was just as influenced by that pagan culture as Abraham was. So, where does that leave us?
 
it would seem that Ibrahim was just as influenced by that pagan culture as Abraham was.

So you guess that the trial of God for Abraham and his son was an act of blood atonement similar to that of the Leviticus ?


Indeed ,it would be a false analogy between both the acts....


the slaughter been offered in the story of Abraham and his son was in the place of the obedient son

while the slaughter been offered in Leviticus was to atone the transgressor


God was testing Abraham to see if he would actually kill his own son, as a test of his loyalty. by no mean it was an act of blood atonement....

Just who atoned who in the story?!!

ninetrey said:
so it is possible that isa (sas) is coming back to earth to bring justice??????
i acually thought muhammad (sas) was the last prophet and the seal?

:sl:
That is Islamic topic... and the thread is discussing other issues


anyway A true Muslim who busy his mind basically with how to bring justice at least with himself and his family ....if everyone of us begins with himself ...justice would prevail in the community ...

peace
 
Last edited:
esselamu aleikum

so it is possible that isa (sas) is coming back to earth to bring justice??????
i acually thought muhammad (sas) was the last prophet and the seal?

Wa 'ilaikas salaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.

I've read from Bukhari or Muslim, Ibn Mas'ud Radhiyallahu 'anhu said: that this ayat " An Nisa(4):159 And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness against them.

Talk about the dead of Almasih Iisa Ibn Maryam Rasulullah 'alaihi Salaam after his descend near Al Qiyamah. He was not dead:


An Nisa(4):158 Nay Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power Wise.

He will be judge who will use Al Qur'an and As Sunnah.

Sunan of Abu-DawoodHadith Narrated by Abu Hurayrah


The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace be upon him). He will descend (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.
(HR.Abu Daud (4324), Qishshah Ad Dajjal, Ash Shahihah (2182)


Assalamu'alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.
 
So you guess that the trial of God for Abraham and his son was an act of blood atonement similar to that of the Leviticus ?

No, that is not what I was saying. You try to make a point that the whole concept of blood atonement is pagan in origin. Even though I point out that it is Biblical in origin, you say that this doesn't change your view because the Jews themselves copied it from pagans, that it was not something they received as a command from God.

But for Christians, the substutionary atonement of Christ is not just about blood atonment, though we certainly see elements of that in it. Rather it is a type of offering similar to that which Abraham/Ibrahim made of his son. Only this time the Father does not stay the hand of the executioner and Christ dies in submission to accomplish the atoning sacrifice (there is the connection with blood atonement) which, because his is a perfect offering, is once for all and needs not be repeated as the previous sacrifices had been.

The offering of Ishmael by Ibrahim or Isaac by Abraham have the same root. Both Jews and Muslims claim that it is an act of obedience to God. But the understanding of why he should do this, and what an offering was, be it Abraham or Ibrahim that we are talking about has to come from somewhere. So, what was the context in which Abraham/Ibrahim would understand what God was asking of him? It was the context of the world in which he lived. You claim this practice to be a practice of pagan origin with respect to the Jews. And if the only context in which Abraham could understand this request from God to offer his son as a sacrifice was the ritual sacrifices of pagan cultures -- at least that is what I am understanding you to have said -- then, since Abraham and Ibrahim are the same person, then the only context in which Ibrahim could understand this request from God to offer his son as a sacrifice was the ritual sacrifices of pagan cultures. That is why I said: "it would seem that Ibrahim was just as influenced by that pagan culture as Abraham was."

Given that Ibrahim and Abraham are the same person, it would seem to be hard to deny that. You may wish to argue that Ibrahim was not influenced by pagan cultures, I would merely suggest that if that is true, then it follows that Abraham was not either. And if subsequent understandings of sacrifice, especially with regard to Christ, are derived from Abraham's offering, then those understandings are no more pagan than Abraham's was.
 
You try to make a point that the whole concept of blood atonement is pagan in origin.
.

and you try to put something(the test of Abraham and his son )irrelevant to the issue of the blood atonement....


And if the only context in which Abraham could understand this request from God to offer his son as a sacrifice was the ritual sacrifices of pagan cultures.

you mean Abraham could have guessed that God moved him to make a ritual similar to the ritual sacrifices of pagan cultures?

if that is true then Abraham would find out soon that he got it wrong and his God is not one of such pagan type gods who would appease their anger a human sacrifice of an innocent ,but the fact nothing ever took place at all of what he might ever have thought ....it was just a test of loyalty.....

why would the test take such form?

as nothing would be more precious for Abraham in life than his long awaited only son (logically would be Ismael,but that's not our issue).....
and that what makes the test to be the hardest......

as if God was saying

Abraham ... would you obey me to the point of losing the most precious thing in your life?

Abraham passed the test and God showed that he didn't have in his mind the need for the death of his son ......
If God's original intent was a sacrifice he would have let Abraham do it.....


If Allah the almighty let Abraham finish with the slaughter then we have all the right to condemn his order and accuse him of pagan type gods......
as only in paganism gods be satisfied with such acts....

obviously ,that was not the case..

he substitutionary atonement of Christ is not just about blood atonement,. Rather it is a type of offering similar to that which Abraham/Ibrahim made of his son.

again false analogy

Christians fail to realize that the story of Abraham is not even a hint of blood atonement
Just who atoned who,in the story?!!

zero atoned zero

What similarities? let's check

Christians claim that what Abraham made with his son have similarity with what God made with Jesus

that is untrue........

we have

Abraham and his son

versus

God and Jesus


1-Abraham was ordered by God to slaughter his son , but who ordered God to slaughter Jesus?

2-no doubt, from within himself as a merciful father ,Abraham wouldn't like to slaughter his only son ,but only began to do it to satisfy God......
in the case of Jesus God not only was pleased by the act but also there was none to satisfy by the act but himself.

3-being both obedient(Abraham and his son) God was pleased by their obedience and replaced The son with a sheep , the opposite is the case of Jesus(according to the NT) , none saved him from his ill fate...

the similarities only exists in the imagination of such Christians who imitate the dishonest approach of the gospel writers in dealing with the old testament ,as they continue the journey of seeking the non-existent ...
 
Last edited:
OK. I thank-you for taking the time to make your views more plain. On this we are going to have a difference with regard to how we view ancient history and what motivated different individuals. But I do accept your point, that at least to the Muslim, God never sought blood atonement from anyone.

I still believe that the Bible shows that the Jews practiced it because it was what God told them to do. But I understand you think those passages were corruptions as a result of pagan influences that crept into Judaism, and not what God actually told them to do. Without a time machine I don't suppose we have a way of verifying either view.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top