The Central Flaw of Christianity (another article)

[Grace Seeker]

Sol why is it that whenever i ask you for direct solid evidence in explicit words from the teachings of ANY previous Prophet, Jesus or God of the blood atonement of Christ that you are clearly unable to do so EVERYTIME?

There are many possible responses to such a statement:

First, let's examine the source you asked for: "ANY previous Prophet, Jesus or God." This fits with a Muslim way of receiving revelation, but that which is received and accepted by Christians is much broader, we even have a broader understanding of what a prophet is. Therefore we can find substantiation of beliefs in material that you may not accept as valid. We need to understand that when trying to "prove" the validity of our beliefs that such passages may not be convincing to you. But you likewise need to understand that just because they don't convince you does not mean that we don't see our views as fully supported.

Second, let's examine you preference for "explicit" words. It is nice when one has explicit words, but I don't find them necessary. Many beliefs that we each have are founded on interpretation of passages on consort with other passages, on the context in which given words are said, and what one understands as being implicit in them. This is not something that is unique to Christianity, one finds it in Islam as well. Indeed, with Jesus, one often finds him speaking in parable so that his teachings are intentional veiled to some degree, but clear to those who are truly seeking to understand what he is saying and who listen with ears to hear rather than just listening to the words. Thus, those who elect only to hear the "explicit" words of Jesus may actually miss the message that for others he is very clearly communicating. There is no proof that something is not taught, simply because it is not found in "explicit" words.

Lastly, let us examine the absolute quality of the statement, "whenever". This presumes that at no time, ever, has Sol provided any such teachings. But in fact, post #205 does contain exactly what you asked for -- the explicit words of Jesus that the Christ had to suffer (i.e. die) and that repentance and the preaching of forgiveness of sins would be preached in his name (i.e. that there is a connection between his death and the forgiveness of sins, which is a description of atonement). It matters not if you find the passage convincing or not, Sol has presented evidence. You can deny that Jesus ever said those words if you wish, but we hold that he did and we see them as speaking directly to what you have asked about.

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

greetings hamza. one must really wonder what isn't explicit about the following:

40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence. 44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” --- Luke 24:40-49 NIV

could you please explain to us what is ambiguous about the above? could you please explain to us what christ meant with the above? i've noticed that it's often the case that you never actually deal with explaining why my examples do not say what i claim they say but instead continually bring up passages that have to do with personal responsibility. that's great for you but neither christians or jews have ever claimed that blood atonement removes personal responsibility. as it goes for your claims that blood atonement is not taught in scripture then what do you make of the animal sacrifices that the jews conducted for thousands of years? and more importantly, how the very prophets whom you claim spoke against blood atonement themselves could conduct and participate in blood atonement (such as you claiming that the passage in ezekiel is against blood atonement when ezekiel 43 highlights specifically how to make a proper blood atonement)? your revisionism is just so against history. if what you say is at all true, then could you show us through biblical jewish law that the following is at all false?:

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. --- Hebrews 9:22

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. --- Leviticus 17:11 NIV

i'd very much like it if you could deal with the above. i find it quite odd that on one hand, muslims will decry the blood atonement in the bible as base and evil and use this to disparage god's word and yet when the matter calls for it, you will now claim that there is no basis for blood atonement in the bible (and as such it isn't supposedly base and evil). really, that's faulty argumentation.

as regards the matter of whether sin is a debt or not, please disprove my point from the debt motive within the language of the bible.

Greetings Sol,

I am relieved that you have finally replied to my post and that was only because Naidamar forced you to reply. Again i hope i am not putting any undue pressure on you to reply because i do not want you to feel you have to reply even though you do not want to.

Looking at your reply Sol again i am truly dissapointed that ONCE AGAIN you could not even attempt to answer my question but Instead as usual you clutch at straws.

You keep quoting from vague verses which do NOT mention ANYTHING of the fact that the blood atonement is NECESSERY for the atonement of sins. WHERE DOES THE VERSE SAY THAT?

Are you seriously trying to pass off such a vague verse as proof of your position which does NOT imply AT ALL that blood iof Christ is necessery for atonement.

If you go to a court of law and in trying to prove your case give vague evidences like you always do then the judges and jury will just laugh at you and think is this guy for real?

Come on Sol we weren't born yesterday. If you seriously think that verses like that proves your position in even the slightest then you are truly dillusional.

If we were both to give our evidences regarding the atonement to a court of law and if both evidences were to be thoroughly examined then there is absolutely NO doubt that the jury and judges will laugh at what you try to pass off as evidence or proof of your position.

All you have consistantly provided is vague verses which do NOT refer to what you are wanting them to refer to. They are also NOT supported by any other verses to imply what you want them to imply.

The evidence i have provided throughout this thread to disaprove your position that there is NO such teaching of the atonement in ANY of the words or teachings of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God Far OUTWEIGHS anything that you have even attempted to have provide as proof of your position. You have truly failed very miserably in this regard and thave therefore failed again.

Also for the second time now in this thread i have noticed that you are trying to assert that the Jewish faith relies on the blood atonement for the forgiveness of sins. Let us look at a Jewish perspective of the blood atonement:


The Jewish Perspective of blood atonement CLEARLY disaproving the Christian claim that atonement is through blood


Addressing those who say blood is the only way for atonement

Some people claim that there is no atonement without blood and that the blood of Jesus makes atonement for all of our sins. There are a few problems I have with this ideology. No where in the Hebrew Bible does it say blood is the ONLY way to make atonement for our sins. In fact there are several verses that prove otherwise. Also, no where in the Hebrew Bible does it say a person can die for someone elses sins, in fact it says the exact opposite. Jeremiah 31:30 teaches us that everyone shall die for their OWN sins.

“But every one shall die for his own sins.”

Ezekiel 18:20 teaches once again that we are responsible for our OWN sins, for the wickedness of the wicked shall be accounted to that individual alone.

“The person who sins, he alone shall die. A child shall not share the burden of a parent’s guilt, nor shall a parent share the burden of a child’s guilt; the righteousness of the righteous shall be accounted to him alone, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be accounted to him alone.”

The only verse in the entire Hebrew Bible that people use to support their claim that blood is the only way to make atonement is Leviticus 17:11. They do however read this verse slightly out of context, for Leviticus 17:10-12 teaches us to not eat blood, because God gave us blood to make atonement for our sins upon the altar. Just a quick sidenote, I’m pretty sure Jesus’s blood was never placed upon an altar. But anyways, despite the fact that this is the only verse they use to support their claim, no where in Leviticus 17:11 does it say blood is the ONLY way to make atonement. Here is what Leviticus 10-12 says in case anyone is wondering:

“And if anyone of the house of Israel or of the stangers who reside among them partakes of any blood, I will set my face against the person who partakes of the blood, and I will cut him off from among his kin. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have assigned it to you for making expiation for your lives upon the altar; it is the blood, as life, that effects expiation. Therefore I say to the Israelite people: no person among you shall partake of blood, nor shall the stranger who resides among you partake of blood.”

Its easy to see that the main message is to not “partake” or eat blood, because God assigned the blood of an animal to make atonement for our sins upon the altar. It’s also easy to see that now where in this passage does it say blood is the ONLY way to make atonement, it simply answers the question of how a sacrifice of an animal can make atonement.


True Sacrifice To God

Some Christians get so caught up in the concept of sacrifices that they fail to realize that it isn’t even the blood of the sacrifice that guarantee’s atonement for our sins. For If we are not truly sorry for our sins, giving up our evil ways, and desiring atonement, God can reject our sacrifices. In the book of Amos 5:21-22 the Israelites offer sacrifices to God and he rejects them, thus exemplifying the fact that blood in no way guarantees atonement. For their sacrifices were not true sacrifices. God teaches us what a true sacrifice is in Psalm 51:18-19

“You do not desire burnt offerings; true sacrifice to god is a contrite spirit; god you will not despise a contrite and crushed heart.”

Here we are specifically told that true sacrifice to God is a contrite spirit and a contrite heart. Notice no where does it say true sacrifice to God involves the use of blood. So when some people claim Jews don’t make sacrifices today I would have to disagree, for many of us give the true sacrifice of a contrite heart and spirit every single day.


God doesnt command, require, or desire us to sacrifice

I also want to quickly point out that God doesn’t even command us to sacrifice as Isaiah 7:22-23 says:

“For when I freed your fathers from the land of Egypt, I did not speak with them or command them concerning burnt offerings or sacrifice. But this is what I commanded them: do my bidding, that I may be your god and you may be my people; walk only in the way that I enjoin upon you, that it may go well with you.”

Micah 6:6-8 also helps exemplify this message by telling us the only things God requires from us:

“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 first born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for my sins? “He has told you, o man, what is good, and what the lord requires of you: ONLY to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk modestly with your god; then will your name achieve wisdom.”

Deut. 10:12-14 tells us exactly what God ONLY demands of us:

“And now, O Israel, what does the lord your god demand of you? ONLY this: to revere the lord your god, to walk only in his paths, to love him, and to serve the lord your god with all your heart and soul, keeping the lord’s commandments and laws, which I enjoin upon you today..."

God doesn't even desire us to sacrifice.

Proverbs 21:3 “To do what is right and just is more desired by the lord than sacrifice.”

Hosea 6:6 “For I desire goodness, not sacrifice; Obedience to God, rather than burnt offerings.”

1 Samuel 15:22 “does the lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obedience to the lords commands? Surely obedience is better than sacrifice”

Atonement through prayer and repentance

Ok so now to answer the question of how you can gain atonement without blood. First of all, I have already pointed out that God will never despise a contrite spirit and heart, for that is true sacrifice to God. But the following verses show us that we can gain atonement through repentance and prayer:

2 Chronicles 7:14 “when my people, who bear my name, humble themselves, pray, and seek my favor and turn from their evil ways, I will hear in my heavenly abode and forgive their sins and heal their land.”

Numbers 14:19-20 “Pardon, I pray, the iniquity of this people according to your great kindness, as you have forgiven this people ever since Egypt.” And the lord said, “I pardon, as you have asked.”

Psalm 32:5 “Then I acknowledged my sin to You; I did not cover up my guilt; I resolved “I will confess my transgression to the lord,” and you forgave the guilt of my sin.”

Proverbs 28:13 “He who covers up his faults will not succeed; he who confesses and gives them up will find mercy.”

Hosea 14:2-8 “Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have fallen because of your sin. Take words with you and return to the Lord. Say to Him: Forgive all guilt and accept what is good; instead of bulls we will pay [the offering of] our lips… I will heal their affliction, generously will I take them back in love; for my anger has turned away from them. I will be to Israel like dew; he shall blossom like the lily, he shall strike root like a Lebanon tree. His boughs shall spread out far, his beauty shall be like the olive tree’s, his fragrance like that of Lebanon. They who sit in his shade shall be revived: they shall bring to life new grain, they shall blossom like the vine; his scent shall be like the wine of Lebanon.

Psalm 107:17 “there were fools who suffered for their sinful way, and for their iniquities. All food was loathsome to them; they reached the gates of death. In their adversity they cried to the lord and he saved them from their troubles. He gave an order and healed them; he delivered them from the pits.”

Isaiah 55:6-8 “seek the lord while he can be found, call to him while he is near. Let the wicked give up his ways, the sinful man his plans; let him turn back to the lord, and he will pardon him; to our god, for he freely forgives. For my plans are not your plans, nor are my ways your ways.”

Isaiah 56:7 “let the wicked give up his ways, the sinful man his plans; let him turn back to the lord, and he will pardon him; to our god, for he freely forgives. For my plans are not your plans, nor are my ways your ways – declares the lord”

Isaiah 36:3 “Perhaps when the house of Judah hear of all the disasters I intend to bring upon them, they will turn back from their wicked ways, and I will pardon their iniquity and their sin.”

Ezekiel 18:21-23: “Moreover, if the wicked one repents of all the sins that he committed and keeps all my laws and does what is just and right, he shall live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions he committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness he has practiced, he shall live. Is it my desire that a wicked person shall die? Says the lord god. It is rather that he shall turn back from his ways and live.”

Ezekiel 33:14-16 “So, too, when I say to the wicked, “You shall die,”and he turns back from his sinfulness and does what is just and right – if the wicked man restores a pledge, makes good what he has taken by robbery, follows the laws of life, and does not commit iniquity – he shall live, he shall not die. None of the sins that he committed shall be remembered against him; since he does what is just and right, he shall live.”

Isaiah 1:16-20 “Wash yourselves clean; put your evil doings away from my sight. Cease to do evil; learn to do good. Devote yourselves to justice; aid the wronged. Uphold the rights of the orphan; defend the cause of the widow… Come let us reach an understanding, says the lord. Be your sins like crimson, they can turn snow-white; be they red as dyed wool, they can become like fleece. If, then you agree and give heed, you will eat the good things of the earth”

Job 33:26 "He prays to God and is accepted by Him, he enters His presence with shouts of joy"

Psalm 34:18-19 “They cry out, and the Lord hears, and saves them from all their troubles. The Lord is close to the brokenhearted; those crushed in spirit he delievers.”

1Kings 8:46-66 is beautiful prayer by King Solomon asking for atonement through prayer and repentance, and in 1 Kings 9:3 God says he hears Solomon’s prayer.

Also, Leviticus 5:11-13 teaches us that the poorest of people who could not afford to sacrifice animals could offer GRAIN to God as a way to make atonement for their sins. Does grain have blood?

“And if his means do not suffice for two turtledoves or two pigeons, he shall bring as his offering for that of which he is guilty a tenth of an ephah of choice flour for a sin offering…Thus the priest shall make expiation on his behalf for whichever of these sins he is guilty, and he shall be forgiven.” Leviticus 5:11-13

Conclusion

Clearly all of these verses show that there can be atonement without blood. 2 Chronicles 7:14 tells us that if we humble ourselves and pray to God he will hear our prayer and forgive our sins. In Numbers 14:19-20 Moses prays to God asking him to pardon the sins of the Jewish people, and God says “I pardon, as you have asked.”

In Hosea 14:2-8 the prophet Hosea tells us to NOT offer sacrifices of animals to God but instead to give him the offerings of our lips, our prayer. And God will heal our affliction.

All throughout the book of Ezekiel we are taught how to return to God by giving up our evil ways and he will forgive us. Did any of these verses say blood is needed to make atonement? No, the claim that blood is the ONLY way to make atonement for our sins is a man made ideology, for clearly the Hebrew Bible tells us otherwise.

When people tell me that Jesus is the ONLY way to make atonement for our sins then they should know that the Hebrew bible tells me otherwise.

All throughout the Hebrew Bible God is called our “savior.” Why would I ever need someone else to save me? The God that revealed himself to my Jewish ancestors at Mt Sinai and made us his people several thousand years ago is my one and only savior.

Isaiah 43:3 “For I the Lord am your God, the Holy One of Israel, your SAVIOR.”

End of article


So your false assertion that atonement of blood exists in the hebrew Bible has been thoroughly refuted, rejected and disaproved. You have been consistantly unable to provide a shred of evidence to support your position regarding the existance of the atonement of blood in the words and teachings of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God.

So all can see looking at your posts that your false arguments have been thoroughly refuted and rejected and therefore you have failed once again to prove your position.

Therefore there is NO doubt that there is absolutely NO proof or evidence regarding the atonement of sins through blood ANYWHERE in the words or teachings of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God or ANYWHERE in the Jewish scritpures or the Hebrew Bible.

Therefore truth has prevailed over falsehood!

 

[Ramadhan]

40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence. 44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” --- Luke 24:40-49 NIV

could you please explain to us what is ambiguous about the above?

I have read and read and read again the above passage, but I couldn't find which part of the passage above that support your earlier position
"sin is a debt which leads to death whose ONLY atonement is paid by blood"

You explain to us Sol. As far as I (and hopefully thousands of people that will continue to read this thread), there is none in the passage that suppport your belief of "sin is a debt which leads to death whose ONLY atonement is paid by blood"

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

I have read and read and read again the above passage, but I couldn't find which part of the passage above that support your earlier position
"sin is a debt which leads to death whose ONLY atonement is paid by blood"

You explain to us Sol. As far as I (and hopefully thousands of people that will continue to read this thread), there is none in the passage that suppport your belief of "sin is a debt which leads to death whose ONLY atonement is paid by blood"

Either he has special vision which none of us humans have where he could see things that we cannot see or he is just trying to falsely imply that which the verse CLEARLY does not imply. I would go with the latter.

 

[Grace Seeker]

On sin being a debt to God--
Both Anselm and later Luther wrote extensively on this. It is termed the "Satisfaction Theory" Their arguments are based on biblical text. Not all Christians agree with them (I myself find myself leaning away toward some other understandings of the atonement), but it has been the classical understanding of Christendom -- and especially protestant Christendom -- for the last 1000 years. If you want you can either look them up for yourselves in their writings or I can try to provide a brief synopsis of their views, perhaps Wednesday or Thursday.

 

[Woodrow]

On sin being a debt to God--
Both Anselm and later Luther wrote extensively on this. It is termed the "Satisfaction Theory" Their arguments are based on biblical text. Not all Christians agree with them (I myself find myself leaning away toward some other understandings of the atonement), but it has been the classical understanding of Christendom -- and especially protestant Christendom -- for the last 1000 years. If you want you can either look them up for yourselves in their writings or I can try to provide a brief synopsis of their views, perhaps Wednesday or Thursday.

Peace Gene,

I don't want to sidetrack the thread. but just want to point out that Anselm made much more sense than the older belief that God(swt) paid Satan the Ransom of blood atonement through Jesus(as) so that Satan would turn mankind free. (My short condensed version)

I think that fairly well ended the idea of Blood atonement, although that concept seems to have now returned among some Denominations.I don't believe in either, but Anselm made a lot more sense then the old Catholic teaching of the blood Atonement theory.

 

[Sol Invictus]

If we were both to give our evidences regarding the atonement to a court of law and if both evidences were to be thoroughly examined then there is absolutely NO doubt that the jury and judges will laugh at what you try to pass off as evidence or proof of your position.

interesting contention but blatantly false. it is rather easy to quote articles and think that you have made a point but be that as it may, it would seem that simply responding to the general theme of your post has not stopped you from committing the same mistake again and again and again and as such it does look like i'll have the awful task of having to deal with each quote one by one to show you why exactly your argument is so horribly wrong.

Its easy to see that the main message is to not “partake” or eat blood, because God assigned the blood of an animal to make atonement for our sins upon the altar. It’s also easy to see that now where in this passage does it say blood is the ONLY way to make atonement, it simply answers the question of how a sacrifice of an animal can make atonement.

hamza, you have just refuted yourself. i have consistently said that "the bible teaches blood atonement" and you have consistently denied this. in the above your source is basically saying that the bible teaches blood atonement (i.e. "the main message is to not “partake” or eat blood, because God assigned the blood of an animal to make atonement for our sins upon the altar")! i understand that it is rather hard to keep everything in order when relying on somebody else to make your argument for you but this does not change the fact that you have just refuted yourself. the bible does teach blood atonement, right hamza?

God can reject our sacrifices. In the book of Amos 5:21-22 the Israelites offer sacrifices to God and he rejects them, thus exemplifying the fact that blood in no way guarantees atonement. For their sacrifices were not true sacrifices. God teaches us what a true sacrifice is in Psalm 51:18-19

hamza, can you show us where any christian has ever said that blood atonement cannot be rejected? if it isn't done with the right heart then of course god will reject it. notice that you have consistently been attacking a caricature of the christian doctrine. no one has ever said that blood atonement gurantees forgiveness because it depends on the state of one's heart as they are giving their guilt offering. this is exactly like asking god for forgiveness. this in no way guarantees forgiveness because you would have to truly be sorry and ask in a true state of repentance. you have no point with the above objection and are merely trying to make your position look better by attacking things christians never say. yet given that you (or rather your source) has spent all this time disparaging christianity on this point, can you please cite us passages where christians claim that blood atonement equals automatic forgiveness? hamza i'll be waiting for this proof.

God teaches us what a true sacrifice is in Psalm 51:18-19

“You do not desire burnt offerings; true sacrifice to god is a contrite spirit; god you will not despise a contrite and crushed heart.”

Here we are specifically told that true sacrifice to God is a contrite spirit and a contrite heart. Notice no where does it say true sacrifice to God involves the use of blood. So when some people claim Jews don’t make sacrifices today I would have to disagree, for many of us give the true sacrifice of a contrite heart and spirit every single day.

the trouble with only quoting other people's words is that you cannot gurantee that they are correct unless you yourself understand what is being talked about here. notice that in the above, the individual only quotes one part of the chapter. let us see how the chapter ends:

17 My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart
you, God, will not despise.

18 May it please you to prosper Zion,
to build up the walls of Jerusalem.
19 Then you will delight in the sacrifices of the righteous,
in burnt offerings offered whole;
then bulls will be offered on your altar. --- Psalm 51:17-19 NIV

notice how david ends his psalm. basically he is claiming that one's heart has to be in the right place first before offering sacrifices as atonement for sin. this clearly refutes the above but once again i must ask you how you can use the above when you were claiming that blood atonement was never taught in the bible? are these not your words hamza?:

There is NOTHING to see there at all. I have already proven to you that the teaching of the blood atonement CANNOT be found ANYWHERE in the explicit teachings of God, Jesus or the Bible.

so how is it that you are now using an article which admits that blood atonement is taught in the bible?

I also want to quickly point out that God doesn’t even command us to sacrifice as Isaiah 7:22-23 says:

“For when I freed your fathers from the land of Egypt, I did not speak with them or command them concerning burnt offerings or sacrifice. But this is what I commanded them: do my bidding, that I may be your god and you may be my people; walk only in the way that I enjoin upon you, that it may go well with you.”

incorrect. for one thing it isn't even isaiah 7:22-23 but rather jeremiah 7:22-23. i suppose that given that you've never looked into these things yourself you never realized this. that said, the text is not saying that god didn't command the children of israel to offer blood sacrifices (because your very source earlier on says that he does when he's quoting from leviticus 17:11!) but rather that they did not form part of the 10 commandments! jewishlaw is not summed exhausted in the 10 commandments as anyone with but a basic understanding of judaism would know. so once again you and your source are twisting the bible to say what it isn't actually saying!

“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 first born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for my sins? “He has told you, o man, what is good, and what the lord requires of you: ONLY to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk modestly with your god; then will your name achieve wisdom.”

ask a jew whether he has to honour the sabbath as well. of course they would say yes so even that micah passage is not exhaustive. though the better response is that to walk humbly with one's god means to follow his ways and statutes and as such the micah passage is actually teaching blood atonement as well seeing as your source and i are agreed in the fact that this is taught in the bible.

Deut. 10:12-14 tells us exactly what God ONLY demands of us:

“And now, O Israel, what does the lord your god demand of you? ONLY this: to revere the lord your god, to walk only in his paths, to love him, and to serve the lord your god with all your heart and soul, keeping the lord’s commandments and laws, which I enjoin upon you today..."

notice what it says in bold. are you now going to claim that god does not teach substitutionary atonement in the bible? if he does teach this then once again your source has been disproven.

God doesn't even desire us to sacrifice.

( a ) Proverbs 21:3 “To do what is right and just is more desired by the lord than sacrifice.”

( b ) Hosea 6:6 “For I desire goodness, not sacrifice; Obedience to God, rather than burnt offerings.”

( c ) 1 Samuel 15:22 “does the lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obedience to the lords commands? Surely obedience is better than sacrifice”

( a ) all that the above is saying that to do what is right is better than sacrifice. no one denies this because if everyone did what was right then sacrifice would not be required. so no, your source hasn't made their point.

( b ) read the verse in context. once again it's saying that god desires righteousness more than simply going about rituals. the very chapter starts off with him punishing israel for her sins because their heart is not in the right place. furthermore, we have already seen the exact same words in the psalm 51 passage and there david says that once the children of israel come to the lord in a state of true repentance, then god will delight in their offerings and sacrifices. that said, isn't it rather funny how your points always seem to be refuted when we actual go back to these passages that are being cited? if you disagree with this, then you are certainly welcome to check out those passages for yourself and tell us why your points are at all correct.

( c ) once again the text does not say that god does not want sacrifice. instead it is saying that goodness and obedience are in fact better than these. for the fact is that if we could be perfectly good and perfectly obedient then we would not have to have sacrifice as a recourse for our sins. as if that weren't enough, the very next chapter exposes your lies when god does in fact command sacrifice:

The LORD said, “Take a heifer with you and say, ‘I have come to sacrifice to the LORD.’ 3 Invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what to do. You are to anoint for me the one I indicate.” --- 1 Samuel 16:2-3 NIV

god could not say the above if 1 Samuel 15:22 is supposed to be a text wherein he says that he does not want sacrifice at all. once again your incorrect logic has been exposed hamza.

2 Chronicles 7:14 “when my people, who bear my name, humble themselves, pray, and seek my favor and turn from their evil ways, I will hear in my heavenly abode and forgive their sins and heal their land.”

i know that you didn't write the above and as such you would have no idea what i'm talking about hamza but really what are you trying to prove with the above? are you still going to tell me that sacrifice is not taught in the bible? especially seeing as only 7 verses earlier solomon makes a sacrifice and then makes the above prayer!

7 Solomon consecrated the middle part of the courtyard in front of the temple of the LORD, and there he offered burnt offerings and the fat of the fellowship offerings, because the bronze altar he had made could not hold the burnt offerings, the grain offerings and the fat portions. --- 2 Chronicles 7:7 NIV

so will you still say that sacrifice is never taught in the bible? were you even aware of what this source was saying before you decided to copy and paste him? and what then shall we make of the following? :

I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for myself as a temple for sacrifices. --- 2 Chronicles 7:11 NIV

why then would god say that the temple was for sacrifices if all that was needed was just to pray for forgiveness? notice how once again your points are proven completely wrong when we actually go back to the passages themselves?

at this point, i have no use to continue knocking down your points one by one because simply from the above we can see that the quoted passages do not say what you claim they say. oftentimes, your points are refuted when we simply look at what the text says as a whole. in fact, your very source is actually contradicting what you've said! your source agrees that blood atonement is in fact taught in the bible while you have repeatedly said that it wasn't.

So your false assertion that atonement of blood exists in the hebrew Bible has been thoroughly refuted, rejected and disaproved.

hamza, did you even read the very words that you copied and pasted? your source itself agrees that blood atonement is taught in the bible! so aside from trying to make the bible say something that it doesn't say, you would now try to also twist the words of your own source? the fact is that your source actually agrees that blood atonement is indeed taught in the bible. you really ought to read the entire article before you decide to copy and paste.

Therefore there is NO doubt that there is absolutely NO proof or evidence regarding the atonement of sins through blood ANYWHERE in the words or teachings of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God or ANYWHERE in the Jewish scritpures or the Hebrew Bible.

i am reminded of the example of the court of law that you used. if we were indeed standing before the court and i claimed that blood atonement was taught in the bible and you claimed that it wasn't then you would be wrong for the new testament is quite clear on this matter. now realizing that you are in fact wrong, you would then change the question to whether blood atonement is taught in the old testament. of course you would subsequently receive curious stares seeing as your original question concerned the bible and whether christianity follows the bible (and the bible consists of the old and new testament) but be that as it may, we'd at least oblige you on this matter. anyway, once more i would say yes and you would say no but you would bring us a source that in fact agrees with me that blood atonement is taught in the old testament. so in a court of law, your witness would have contradicted you and you would end up losing the case. simple as that.

I have read and read and read again the above passage, but I couldn't find which part of the passage above that support your earlier position
"sin is a debt which leads to death whose ONLY atonement is paid by blood"

seeing as you agreed with the above words hamza, i will also direct the following to you. now, i have read and reread my eposts and couldn't find the section where i said that "sin is a debt which leads to death whose ONLY atonement is paid by blood"? can you please quote this section for us? curiously enough, i remember saying the following:

The bible describes sin as a debt whose method of payment and price is death (Romans 6:23, Hebrews 9:22) and God, since he is infinitely holy and just, requires that sin be punished; that all debts be paid. Now the nature of a debt is as such that he who has no debt can pay the debt of another. This is because a debt (in a manner of speaking) is extraneous to the individual and hence the individual is not levied for something that is absolutely inherent to his self but rather he is levied for a property that is wholly contingent to his being. [...] Therefore, given that sin is an extrinsic quality, it is possible and perfectly logical for a third party to pay the debt of sin belonging to another. Hence the feasibility of animal sacrifices in the Old Testament (Leviticus 5:11, Leviticus 17:11).

you'll find that i chose my words very carefully (which i suppose is why you had to make up a false quote). the only method of paying for sin is death (and please do not even say forgiveness because forgiveness is not paying for your sin. payment is justice, forgiveness is mercy--let us not confuse the two). because sin is paid through death, this then allows for the animal sacrifices in the old testament (which once again your source actually agrees with). you had claimed that atonement by blood was not taught in the bible and yet both myself and your source have proven you wrong.

the reason why your post failed so spectacularly hamza is because your source was responding to a somewhat similar enough argument as mine so that you, who evidently never understood the argument in the first place, could make the mistake that he was actually refuting my position when actually my argument was different enough so that the above could not apply. this once again highlights how you have not been able to grasp my argument nor even the argument that your very own source was making (for your benefit, your source is trying to show that god has forgiven without the shedding of blood and not that payment of sin can be had without death. this of course leads us to the conundrum between justice vs. mercy and i'm sure we would love for you to give us how the muslim deity harmonizes these two. for somewhere along the line, a just god must enact justice and forgiveness is not justice but rather mercy) for they aren't arguing that biblical judaism didn't teach blood atonement. anyway, you and your co-religionists are more than welcome to try to think up an answer to my question but the matter of whether blood atonement is taught in scripture is already settled.

though i do not believe that you had directed this objection at me, i must say that it's somewhat nonsensical to tell us that you don't believe the words of paul (nevermind the fact that you have been repeatedly using him when trying to prove your points---contradiction much?) when everyone here admits that the words of paul form part of christianity and this thread is trying to show a supposed flaw with a christian doctrine. given the above, the christian is certainly allowed to use the new testament in this discussion because it concerns christianity. in a similar vein, i distinctly remember saying the following:

the caveat here is that in entering this discussion, i am not at all trying to make you believe this, but merely only trying to give a logical basis for the christian belief. if it is the case that such a thing is accomplished then my task is done and your article will have been refuted.

now it is perfectly logical for the christian to use the words of paul because these also constitute the new testament. so then, if the christian belief can logically be proven from the bible then there is no problem. the only problem is that you are certainly aware of this and this is why you have been trying to disparage the words of paul with the claim that "muslims don't believe him" (which then is quite odd seeing as you are supposedly a muslim and you have used his words to try and prove your point) but this was never a case of trying to make muslims believe the words of paul but rather one of logically disproving the article that started all of this. simply in terms of logic, we are certainly warranted to use the whole bible whenever we can.

before i end this post, i'm expecting your response to consist of why my interpretation of those bible verses are wrong in your opinion, why my understanding of the position of your source are wrong in your opinion etc. if you're willing to bring out all these bible verses then you should have the decency to examine them one by one as i have.

I think that fairly well ended the idea of Blood atonement, although that concept seems to have now returned among some Denominations.I don't believe in either, but Anselm made a lot more sense then the old Catholic teaching of the blood Atonement theory.

greetings woodrow. as i recall, anselm never disagreed with blood atonement and his interpretation did not have anything to do with renouncing this idea. catholicism has never renounced blood atonement either. the nature of anselm's argument was concerning why blood atonement was made and what effects it would have and not why blood atonement was unscriptural.

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

interesting contention but blatantly false. it is rather easy to quote articles and think that you have made a point but be that as it may, it would seem that simply responding to the general theme of your post has not stopped you from committing the same mistake again and again and again and as such it does look like i'll have the awful task of having to deal with each quote one by one to show you why exactly your argument is so horribly wrong.


hamza, you have just refuted yourself. i have consistently said that "the bible teaches blood atonement" and you have consistently denied this. in the above your source is basically saying that the bible teaches blood atonement (i.e. "the main message is to not “partake” or eat blood, because God assigned the blood of an animal to make atonement for our sins upon the altar")! i understand that it is rather hard to keep everything in order when relying on somebody else to make your argument for you but this does not change the fact that you have just refuted yourself. the bible does teach blood atonement, right hamza?


hamza, can you show us where any christian has ever said that blood atonement cannot be rejected? if it isn't done with the right heart then of course god will reject it. notice that you have consistently been attacking a caricature of the christian doctrine. no one has ever said that blood atonement gurantees forgiveness because it depends on the state of one's heart as they are giving their guilt offering. this is exactly like asking god for forgiveness. this in no way guarantees forgiveness because you would have to truly be sorry and ask in a true state of repentance. you have no point with the above objection and are merely trying to make your position look better by attacking things christians never say. yet given that you (or rather your source) has spent all this time disparaging christianity on this point, can you please cite us passages where christians claim that blood atonement equals automatic forgiveness? hamza i'll be waiting for this proof.


the trouble with only quoting other people's words is that you cannot gurantee that they are correct unless you yourself understand what is being talked about here. notice that in the above, the individual only quotes one part of the chapter. let us see how the chapter ends:

17 My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart
you, God, will not despise.

18 May it please you to prosper Zion,
to build up the walls of Jerusalem.
19 Then you will delight in the sacrifices of the righteous,
in burnt offerings offered whole;
then bulls will be offered on your altar. --- Psalm 51:17-19 NIV

notice how david ends his psalm. basically he is claiming that one's heart has to be in the right place first before offering sacrifices as atonement for sin. this clearly refutes the above but once again i must ask you how you can use the above when you were claiming that blood atonement was never taught in the bible? are these not your words hamza?:



so how is it that you are now using an article which admits that blood atonement is taught in the bible?


incorrect. for one thing it isn't even isaiah 7:22-23 but rather jeremiah 7:22-23. i suppose that given that you've never looked into these things yourself you never realized this. that said, the text is not saying that god didn't command the children of israel to offer blood sacrifices (because your very source earlier on says that he does when he's quoting from leviticus 17:11!) but rather that they did not form part of the 10 commandments! jewishlaw is not summed exhausted in the 10 commandments as anyone with but a basic understanding of judaism would know. so once again you and your source are twisting the bible to say what it isn't actually saying!


ask a jew whether he has to honour the sabbath as well. of course they would say yes so even that micah passage is not exhaustive. though the better response is that to walk humbly with one's god means to follow his ways and statutes and as such the micah passage is actually teaching blood atonement as well seeing as your source and i are agreed in the fact that this is taught in the bible.


notice what it says in bold. are you now going to claim that god does not teach substitutionary atonement in the bible? if he does teach this then once again your source has been disproven.


( a ) all that the above is saying that to do what is right is better than sacrifice. no one denies this because if everyone did what was right then sacrifice would not be required. so no, your source hasn't made their point.

( b ) read the verse in context. once again it's saying that god desires righteousness more than simply going about rituals. the very chapter starts off with him punishing israel for her sins because their heart is not in the right place. furthermore, we have already seen the exact same words in the psalm 51 passage and there david says that once the children of israel come to the lord in a state of true repentance, then god will delight in their offerings and sacrifices. that said, isn't it rather funny how your points always seem to be refuted when we actual go back to these passages that are being cited? if you disagree with this, then you are certainly welcome to check out those passages for yourself and tell us why your points are at all correct.

( c ) once again the text does not say that god does not want sacrifice. instead it is saying that goodness and obedience are in fact better than these. for the fact is that if we could be perfectly good and perfectly obedient then we would not have to have sacrifice as a recourse for our sins. as if that weren't enough, the very next chapter exposes your lies when god does in fact command sacrifice:

The LORD said, “Take a heifer with you and say, ‘I have come to sacrifice to the LORD.’ 3 Invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what to do. You are to anoint for me the one I indicate.” --- 1 Samuel 16:2-3 NIV

god could not say the above if 1 Samuel 15:22 is supposed to be a text wherein he says that he does not want sacrifice at all. once again your incorrect logic has been exposed hamza.


i know that you didn't write the above and as such you would have no idea what i'm talking about hamza but really what are you trying to prove with the above? are you still going to tell me that sacrifice is not taught in the bible? especially seeing as only 7 verses earlier solomon makes a sacrifice and then makes the above prayer!

7 Solomon consecrated the middle part of the courtyard in front of the temple of the LORD, and there he offered burnt offerings and the fat of the fellowship offerings, because the bronze altar he had made could not hold the burnt offerings, the grain offerings and the fat portions. --- 2 Chronicles 7:7 NIV

so will you still say that sacrifice is never taught in the bible? were you even aware of what this source was saying before you decided to copy and paste him? and what then shall we make of the following? :

I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for myself as a temple for sacrifices. --- 2 Chronicles 7:11 NIV

why then would god say that the temple was for sacrifices if all that was needed was just to pray for forgiveness? notice how once again your points are proven completely wrong when we actually go back to the passages themselves?

at this point, i have no use to continue knocking down your points one by one because simply from the above we can see that the quoted passages do not say what you claim they say. oftentimes, your points are refuted when we simply look at what the text says as a whole. in fact, your very source is actually contradicting what you've said! your source agrees that blood atonement is in fact taught in the bible while you have repeatedly said that it wasn't.


hamza, did you even read the very words that you copied and pasted? your source itself agrees that blood atonement is taught in the bible! so aside from trying to make the bible say something that it doesn't say, you would now try to also twist the words of your own source? the fact is that your source actually agrees that blood atonement is indeed taught in the bible. you really ought to read the entire article before you decide to copy and paste.


i am reminded of the example of the court of law that you used. if we were indeed standing before the court and i claimed that blood atonement was taught in the bible and you claimed that it wasn't then you would be wrong for the new testament is quite clear on this matter. now realizing that you are in fact wrong, you would then change the question to whether blood atonement is taught in the old testament. of course you would subsequently receive curious stares seeing as your original question concerned the bible and whether christianity follows the bible (and the bible consists of the old and new testament) but be that as it may, we'd at least oblige you on this matter. anyway, once more i would say yes and you would say no but you would bring us a source that in fact agrees with me that blood atonement is taught in the old testament. so in a court of law, your witness would have contradicted you and you would end up losing the case. simple as that.


seeing as you agreed with the above words hamza, i will also direct the following to you. now, i have read and reread my eposts and couldn't find the section where i said that "sin is a debt which leads to death whose ONLY atonement is paid by blood"? can you please quote this section for us? curiously enough, i remember saying the following:


you'll find that i chose my words very carefully (which i suppose is why you had to make up a false quote). the only method of paying for sin is death (and please do not even say forgiveness because forgiveness is not paying for your sin. payment is justice, forgiveness is mercy--let us not confuse the two). because sin is paid through death, this then allows for the animal sacrifices in the old testament (which once again your source actually agrees with). you had claimed that atonement by blood was not taught in the bible and yet both myself and your source have proven you wrong.

the reason why your post failed so spectacularly hamza is because your source was responding to a somewhat similar enough argument as mine so that you, who evidently never understood the argument in the first place, could make the mistake that he was actually refuting my position when actually my argument was different enough so that the above could not apply. this once again highlights how you have not been able to grasp my argument nor even the argument that your very own source was making (for your benefit, your source is trying to show that god has forgiven without the shedding of blood and not that payment of sin can be had without death. this of course leads us to the conundrum between justice vs. mercy and i'm sure we would love for you to give us how the muslim deity harmonizes these two. for somewhere along the line, a just god must enact justice and forgiveness is not justice but rather mercy) for they aren't arguing that biblical judaism didn't teach blood atonement. anyway, you and your co-religionists are more than welcome to try to think up an answer to my question but the matter of whether blood atonement is taught in scripture is already settled.

though i do not believe that you had directed this objection at me, i must say that it's somewhat nonsensical to tell us that you don't believe the words of paul (nevermind the fact that you have been repeatedly using him when trying to prove your points---contradiction much?) when everyone here admits that the words of paul form part of christianity and this thread is trying to show a supposed flaw with a christian doctrine. given the above, the christian is certainly allowed to use the new testament in this discussion because it concerns christianity. in a similar vein, i distinctly remember saying the following:



now it is perfectly logical for the christian to use the words of paul because these also constitute the new testament. so then, if the christian belief can logically be proven from the bible then there is no problem. the only problem is that you are certainly aware of this and this is why you have been trying to disparage the words of paul with the claim that "muslims don't believe him" (which then is quite odd seeing as you are supposedly a muslim and you have used his words to try and prove your point) but this was never a case of trying to make muslims believe the words of paul but rather one of logically disproving the article that started all of this. simply in terms of logic, we are certainly warranted to use the whole bible whenever we can.

before i end this post, i'm expecting your response to consist of why my interpretation of those bible verses are wrong in your opinion, why my understanding of the position of your source are wrong in your opinion etc. if you're willing to bring out all these bible verses then you should have the decency to examine them one by one as i have.

Greetings Sol,

The ONLY references to the explicit teachings of the blood atonement in the Bible are ONLY FOUND IN THE WORDS OF PAUL AND NOT OF ANY PROPHET, GOD OR JESUS.

Surely if Paul brought in this pagan concept into Christian in the first place then obviously he is going to try and push it as being a teaching of the scriptures when it NEVER was!

Is it not strange Sol that such a fundamental concept such as the blood atonement is NOT BY taught or spoken of by any Prophet, Jesus or God but brought in AFTER Jesus by Paul himself.

Why would God or Jesus or ANY other Prophet NEVER make mention of such a concept? Did God or Jesus forget to make mention of it? NO!

It is because it never was and never has been a teaching of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God but again a concept which was brought in by the biggest of deceivers Paul!

That is why you keep failing in EVERY single post to be able to prove your utterly weak position because the ONLY mention of the explicit teachings of the blood atonement are found in the words of Paul who is the founder of the concept. Other than that neither Jesus, nor God nor does any other Prophet of God EVER mention this pagan concept.

God or Jesus NEVER talked about atonement or a "free-ride" through the blood of an innocent man.

On the contrary Jesus said, "If you would enter life, keep the commandments" (Matthew 19:17).


It was Paul who brought the concept of blood atonement of sin into Christianity. A concept NEVER found ANYWHERE else. AS concept so cruel, troubling and disturbing that it condems an unborn baby who died before baptism TO ETERNAL DOOM!

Jesus CLEARLY contradicts Paul. Not only that, the Old Testament ALSO contradicts Paul as well:


Ezekiel 18:20-22

[20] The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

[21] "But if a wicked man turns away from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.

[22] None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness which he has done he shall live. 2 Chronicles 25:4

[4] But he did not put their children to death, according to what is written in the law, in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, or the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall die for his own sin."

It is Paul who actually transformed the strict monotheism that Jesus proclaimed into a religion that is closer to Greek mythology, than it is towards either Judaism or Islam. Things like the "only begotten son", atonement for the sins of humanity etc. were all alien to the strict monotheism of Abraham, Jesus, Muhammad and ALL the prophets of Israel (Peace be upon them all).

The great theologian Soren Kierkegaard says regarding Paul: "In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther. in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down. making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ"

Paul is claiming that this ideology is supported by the scriptures, and in this case he is making reference to the Hebrew Scriptures, or The Tanach. However, one will find that this idea of an innocent man, in this case Jesus, having to pay for the sins of others is NOWHERE to be found in the Hebrew Bible. In actuality, it is the exact opposite that is found in the Hebrew Scriptures;


“The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. “But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statuses and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him; in his righteousness that he hath done, he shall live.” Ezekiel 18:20-22

Without question, this passage runs in direct contrast with what we find in the teachings of Paul, and it also proves that Paul’s claim that his teachings are in accordance with the scriptures is TOTALLY FALSE.

The spilling of innocent blood for the redemption of mankind is a belief that has its roots in paganism and was adopted into Christianity by none other than Paul himself which was then solidified as dogma at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

Blood atonement was NEVER a teaching of Jesus, nor did he EVER make mention of it.


the Bible is quite clear on the issue of sins being forgiven at the spilling of blood;


“To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifice unto Me?, saith the Lord. I am full of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks or of lamb or of he-goats.” Isaiah 1:11



The Bible itself actually makes it quite clear that forgiveness from sins comes from one’s sincerity in seeking forgiveness from Almighty God and from obedience to Him;


“Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the most High” Psalms 50:13-14

“I desired not sacrifices; I commanded not your fathers, when I stretched forth my hand to bring them out of Egypt, to offer burnt -- offerings to me, but only to obey my voice.” Jeremiah 7:21-22

And as for the innocent being made to pay for the sins of others, the Bible is also quite clear in that respect as well;


“And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, ‘Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the LORD; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin.’ And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, ‘Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. 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 the LORD said unto Moses, ‘Whosoever hath sinned against Me, him will I blot out of My book.’” Exodus 32:30-33


And from the words of Jesus himself one can also conclude that his true teachings where in perfect harmony with these mentioned passages;


“For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.” Matthew 5:20


“For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” Matthew 6:14-15


SO MANY examples can be used from the Bible that one is hard pressed in understanding how a Christian can claim to adhere to the Bible, and yet follow a totally opposite course. Here is yet further examples of what the Bible says;


“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children; neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” Deuteronomy 24:16


“But the children of the murderers he put not to death; according to that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, as the Lord commanded, saying, ‘The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall die for his own sin.’” 2 Kings 14:6


“But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.” Jeremiah 31:30


Again, the Bible states clearly how salvation can be achieved;


“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” 2 Chronicles 7:14


“Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” Isaiah 55:7

Therefore once again you have UTTERLY failed to provide ANY shred of evidence or proof of the teaching of the blood atonement in the explicit words and teachings of any Prophet, God or Jesus.

There is NO doubt that you have NO case whatsoever and if you took your pathetic excuse for proof to a court of law then the judges and jury would only laugh at you and think are you actually trying to take them for fools.

I have also DISAPPROVED your false assertion that the blood atonement of sin is taught in the Hebrew Bible by providing vast evidences from the article in my last post which has exposed the lies you have tried to attribute to the Hebrew Bible.

So ONCE AGAIN SOL YOU ARE THOROUGHLY PROVEN wrong and your position utterly fails!

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

You still have NOT answered my question Sol, If an unborn baby and a baby or child die before they get baptised then is there a chance they could burn in Hell FOREVER?

Your Christian friend Gmcbroom confirms this:

you could argue that babies are man at his most egoistical. How? Easy, all they do is want, want, want; they don't listen to reason. If you argue with a baby you'll lose because their way is the only way. Babies from a psychological point of view are pure Id.

So while we don't want to think of babies condemned to hell, if they aren't baptised they may go there. This is why some Christians practice infant baptism. Those that don't usually don't understand the consequences of it. Even though it's in the bible to perform infant baptism.

I admire his honesty that he is firm in his beliefs as a Christian in that ALL infants, babies and unborn babies who were not baptised may be destined to burn in Hell FOREVER.

However my admiration of his honesty on this matter cannot be extended to you Sol who has been consistently dishonest about his beliefs and the fact that unborn babies, infants and children who are not baptised may burn in Hell forever.

Therefore it is clear that either you refuse to accept this belief or that you rejects the blood atonement of sin altogether.

 

[Sol Invictus]

The ONLY references to the explicit teachings of the blood atonement in the Bible are ONLY FOUND IN THE WORDS OF PAUL AND NOT OF ANY PROPHET, GOD OR JESUS.

hamza, who are you kidding. your own source who is a jew just said that blood atonement was taught in the bible! it's funny how you would just cast aside your source like this.

I have also DISAPPROVED your false assertion that the blood atonement of sin is taught in the Hebrew Bible by providing vast evidences from the article in my last post which has exposed the lies you have tried to attribute to the Hebrew Bible.

are you saying that your source is lying as well? the very article you quoted said that blood atonement was taught in the bible. so let me get this straight. when your own article says that god commanded blood atonement, they are actually saying that god did not command blood atonement. right.

It was Paul who brought the concept of blood atonement of sin into Christianity.

really? so your source is actually agreeing with the words of paul even though they are clearly jewish and not christian?

you bring up the very same points that i have already refuted in my last post. it would seem that all you can do is simply copy and paste things. i had told you that if you were going to disagree with my words that you would have to analyze what was being said. i actually took the time to go back and put the passages in context. you have not and you even went so far s to contradict yourself by citing a source which actually agrees with blood atonement being taught in the bible!

hamza, you have given us no answers except for reiterating your position which has already been shown to be faulty. if you're going to try to save your faulty argument then at least go back and start answering my arguments one by one as i have done with your yours. or is it perhaps the case that you are intellectually unable to?

 

[Sol Invictus]

You still have NOT answered my question Sol, If an unborn baby and a baby or child die before they get baptised then is there a chance they could burn in Hell FOREVER?

Your Christian friend Gmcbroom confirms this:

I admire his honesty that he is firm in his beliefs as a Christian in that ALL infants, babies and unborn babies who were not baptised may be destined to burn in Hell FOREVER.

However my admiration of his honesty on this matter cannot be extended to you Sol who has been consistently dishonest about his beliefs and the fact that unborn babies, infants and children who are not baptised may burn in Hell forever.

Therefore it is clear that either you refuse to accept this belief or that you rejects the blood atonement of sin altogether.

let me get this straight, so simply because another christian said this then it must be true? so if i were to now quote the words of so-called moderate muslims (who ask for the removal of the hadith collection etc.) and terrorists (who hold that all non-muslims merit death at the hands of muslims) then this is the correct islamic view as well? the double-standard is incredible.

this however does not change the fact that you have just quoted from the jewish position and they have said that blood atonement is taught in the bible and now you are pretending that they didn't say this!

 

[Ramadhan]

your own source who is a jew just said that blood atonement was taught in the bible!

was it blood atonement of animals or of humans that was taught in bible, Sol?

are you saying that your source is lying as well? the very article you quoted said that blood atonement was taught in the bible. so let me get this straight. when your own article says that god commanded blood atonement, they are actually saying that god did not command blood atonement. right.

Was it blood atonement of human or animals? surely human and animals are different, no? Or are you saying that humans sacrifices are taught in judaism?

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

hamza, who are you kidding. your own source who is a jew just said that blood atonement was taught in the bible! it's funny how you would just cast aside your source like this.


are you saying that your source is lying as well? the very article you quoted said that blood atonement was taught in the bible. so let me get this straight. when your own article says that god commanded blood atonement, they are actually saying that god did not command blood atonement. right.


really? so your source is actually agreeing with the words of paul even though they are clearly jewish and not christian?

you bring up the very same points that i have already refuted in my last post. it would seem that all you can do is simply copy and paste things. i had told you that if you were going to disagree with my words that you would have to analyze what was being said. i actually took the time to go back and put the passages in context. you have not and you even went so far s to contradict yourself by citing a source which actually agrees with blood atonement being taught in the bible!

hamza, you have given us no answers except for reiterating your position which has already been shown to be faulty. if you're going to try to save your faulty argument then at least go back and start answering my arguments one by one as i have done with your yours. or is it perhaps the case that you are intellectually unable to?

Sol I have just stated in my last post that the only places in the Bible that contain the teachings of the blood atonement are IN THE WORDS OF PAUL AND NOT ANY OTHER PROPHET, GOD OR JESUS!

My article also affirms this but at the same time it THOROUGHLY refutes your false assertion that the blood atonement is taught in the Hebrew Bible!

My position throughout this thread has been backed up by evidences and proofs whilst you have been UNABLE to refute or disprove a single point and you have therefore continuously strengthened my position!

I keep on asking you for proof and evidences from the explicit teachings and words of God and Jesus and any other Prophet of the teaching of the blood atonement of sin but why do you keep failing to do so? WHY can you not provide any proof? Simply because it does NOT exist in ANY teaching or words of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God.

Therefore all you can do is clutch to straws whilst my vast evidences stand as proof of my position regarding the fact that there are NO teachings of the blood atonement ANYWHERE in the words of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God nor is this pagan concept taught ANYWHERE in the Hebrew Bible. But it is a concept brought in by Paul who contradicted Jesus and his teachings to bring in his own pagan beliefs and practises.

 

[Ramadhan]

Oh by the way sol, does judaism require blood for atonement must be spilt in a certain place?

Can we have a look again at those blood atonement verses?

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

let me get this straight, so simply because another christian said this then it must be true? so if i were to now quote the words of so-called moderate muslims (who ask for the removal of the hadith collection etc.) and terrorists (who hold that all non-muslims merit death at the hands of muslims) then this is the correct islamic view as well? the double-standard is incredible.

this however does not change the fact that you have just quoted from the jewish position and they have said that blood atonement is taught in the bible and now you are pretending that they didn't say this!

So what is Gmcbroom? Not a Christian? Or is he a hardliner deviated from the right path? Tell us in order for us to gain clarification....

You keep avoiding the question Sol I have not been able to receive a clear answer from you as yet. ANSWER THE QUESTION!

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

Oh by the way sol, does judaism require blood for atonement must be spilt in a certain place?

Can we have a look again at those blood atonement verses?

There's no point brother Naidamar he will NEVER answer any questions head on. He is good at avoiding direct questions and diverting away from the real issues because he KNOWS he CANNOT answer them.

 

[Ramadhan]

As far as I know, Sol has not provided direct evidence from Jesus (p) sayings that He spilt his blood to atone the sins of mankind.

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

As far as I know, Sol has not provided direct evidence from Jesus (p) sayings that He spilt his blood to atone the sins of mankind.

He can't because there is NONE. Nor are these teachings consistent with that of ANY other prophet or were they EVER even uttered or taught by Jesus by they are ONLY found in the teachings of the Paul who brought these pagan beliefs and practices into Christianity from his liking and influence of Greek mythology.

He REFUSES to answer a single point that has been raised but instead constantly diverts away from direct questions.

Is there any point discussing anything with such a person?

 

[Ramadhan]

There's no point brother Naidamar he will NEVER answer any questions head on. He is good at avoiding direct questions and diverting away from the real issues because he KNOWS he CANNOT answer them.

It makes me wonder if Sol Invictus is actually a troll. He surely does write a lot of words, but you are right, he never directly answered plain questions. It's always a lot of smoke and mirror.

 

[Sol Invictus]

was it blood atonement of animals or of humans that was taught in bible, Sol?

the crucial point was blood atonement itself. but you have posed a very good question and let us actually see what the old testament says followed by what jews themselves have said:

But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

[...]

10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin

[...]

12 For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

--- Isaiah 53:5-6, 10, 12 NIV (do read the entire chapter when you get the chance)

the text explicitly says that the life of the individual in question is being made an offering for sin. now we can speculate all we want but let us see who jews have believed that the person in question is:

"The Holy One gave Messiah the opportunity to save souls but to be severely chastised: and forthwith the Messiah accepted the chastisements of love, as is written, "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted." And when Israel is sinful, the Messiah seeks mercy upon them, as it is written, "By his stripes we were healed," and "He carried the sins of many and made intercession for the trangressors.""* (Bere****h Rabbah, Rabbi Moshe Hadershan)

Rabbinical Elijah the prophet quote: "Bear the suffering and punishment of thy Lord, with which he chastises thee for the sins of Israel, as it is written, 'He is pressed for our rebellion--crushed for our iniquities' until the end come." * (Midrash Cohen, BhM, 2:29)

"And when Israel is sinful, the Messiah seeks for mercy upon them, as it is written, "By His stripes we were healed, and He carried the sins of many; and made intercession for the transgressors."** (B're****h Rabbah)

Referring to Zech 12:10-12, "R. Dosa says: '(They will mourn) over the Messiah who will be slain.' " **(B. Suk. 52a; also Y. Suk. 55b)

so apparently it isn't antithetical to judaism to suppose that the messiah will bear the sins of others.