Customer Discussions > Christianity forum

why Christianity is and Islam is not a legitimate successor to Judaism


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 78 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 6, 2012 8:20:39 AM PST
Rolling stones wrote: "I can show Christian documents from as early as around 200 AD that proves Jews never believed what you claim they did about Isaiah's prophecies."

The secular writer Josephus identified Vespasian as the messianic ruler of the world who was widely expected in the first century. Since the writings of Josephus were subsidized by Vespasian and his son Titus, it may well be that Josephus was stroking the egos of his patrons. It is very likely that the later historians Tacitus and Suetonius were influenced by what Josephus had written.

On the soc.history.ancient newsgroup, Christopher Ingham provided the following two references from Josephus : The Jewish War Books III-IV (Loeb Classical Library No. 487) and from Tacitus: Histories, Books IV-V, Annals Books I-III (Loeb Classical Library No. 249)
============

Josephus (_BJ_312-13; Loeb ed.): "What more than all else incited them [the Jews] to the war was an ambiguous oracle, likewise found in their sacred scriptures, to the effect that at that time one from their country would become ruler of the world. This they understood to mean someone of their own race, and many of their wise men went astray in their interpretation of it. The oracle, however, in reality signified the sovereignty of Vespasian, who was proclaimed emperor on Jewish soil. For all that, it is impossible for men to escape their fate, even though they foresee it."

Tacitus (_Hist._5.13; Loeb ed.): "Prodigies had indeed occurred [...]. Contending hosts were seen meeting in the skies, arms flashed,, and suddenly the temple [in Jerusalem] was ilumined with fire from the clouds. [...] Few interpreted these omens as fearful; the majority firmly believed that their ancient priestly writings contained the prophecy that this was the very time when the East should grow strong and that men starting from Judea should possess the world. This mysterious prophecy had in reality pointed to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, as is the way of human ambition, interpreted these great destinies in their own favour, and could not be turned to the truth even by adversity."

In the Chapter on Vespasian in "Lives of the Caesars" (trans by Catharine Edwards), Oxford (2000) Lives of the Caesars (Oxford World's Classics) , Suetonius wrote the following:

"According to an old and established belief widespread throughout the East, it was fated that at that time men coming from Judaea would take control of the world. This prediction, which events later revealed to concern the Roman emperor, the Jews took to refer to themselves and rebelled [...]" [pp. 262-263]

From the above we can conclude that, when Josephus and the later two historians wrote their books, secular writers did not view Jesus as the messianic ruler of the world who was widely expected in the first century.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 6, 2012 6:45:01 AM PST
Rolling, Many former rabbis have by prayer and meditation come to see Jesus as the promised Messiah, the One sent into the World not to deliver from the oppression of any worldly power, but sin. Peace always in the Most Precious Blood of Christ

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 5, 2012 11:02:35 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 5, 2012 11:06:24 PM PST
Psalms are the writings of men. They are NOT considered to be prophecies from God. Only Christians have mistaken them for prophecies. Again, we have Christians believing they know Jewish Scripture and writings better than the most learned Rabbis.

It's also interesting how you suddenly have taken a turn against David Kimchi now that his TRUE words have been published here.

"Even if the psalm is messianic, Kimchi indignantly refutes the possibility that it can refer to Jesus."

LOL!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 5, 2012 10:58:01 PM PST
Birutegal says:
rolling,

So, Kimchi (as in Korean cabbage kimchee) doesn't deny they are messianic verses in the psalm? He merely refuses to acknowledge that they fit The Messiah Jesus.

The Psalms are woven through with prophecy. That you are unable and unwilling to see that is not from God but from another source.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 5, 2012 10:57:16 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 5, 2012 11:03:38 PM PST
"I suppose those 70 some Jewish translators were liars, according to you? Really? Funny."

They translated the 5 books of Moses, the Torah. That is ALL they translated. They never translated Isaiah.....

(Wikipedia)

After the Torah, other books were translated over the next two to three centuries.

It is not altogether clear which was translated when, or where; some may even have been translated twice, into different versions, and then revised.[16] The quality and style of the different translators also varied considerably from book to book, from the literal to paraphrasing to interpretative.

Some sections of the Septuagint may show Semiticisms, or idioms and phrases based on Semitic languages like Hebrew and Aramaic.[21] Other books, such as the Daniel and Proverbs, show Greek influence more strongly.[7]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 5, 2012 10:55:09 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 5, 2012 10:55:41 PM PST
"Whilst Kimchi admits that the messianic theory has support, the introduction to the book warns against regarding the psalms as prophecies. They manifest the Holy Spirit, but this differs from prophecy. Even if the psalm is messianic, Kimchi indignantly refutes the possibility that it can refer to Jesus."

http://www.oztorah.com/2010/02/david-kimchis-response-to-christianity-in-his-psalm-commentary/

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 5, 2012 10:54:44 PM PST
Birutegal says:
And?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 5, 2012 10:54:17 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 5, 2012 10:54:52 PM PST
You want to see proof of your lies? Read this below.....

"Whilst Kimchi admits that the messianic theory has support, the introduction to the book warns against regarding the psalms as prophecies. They manifest the Holy Spirit, but this differs from prophecy. Even if the psalm is messianic, Kimchi indignantly refutes the possibility that it can refer to Jesus."

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 5, 2012 10:53:09 PM PST
Birutegal says:
rolling,

Please, stop twisting my words and adding to them. Reread my post.

I suppose those 70 some Jewish translators were liars, according to you? Really? Funny.

The rest of your post is nothing more than slanted talking points. No cigar.

btw, I never said the Greek version is more accurate than the Hebrew version. Copy and paste MY WORDS to that effect.

bts, you ought to delete all the "lie" words you throw around indiscriminately here. You lose credibility as fast as the speed of light.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 5, 2012 10:39:08 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 5, 2012 10:42:52 PM PST
I want to prove what a deceiver that Michael Brown is. He quotes from Rabbi David Kimchi to give the impression that he actually supported the Christian readings of our Scripture. In reality he did the OPPOSITE.

You can read an entire article from a real Jewish scholar below showing how Kimchi repeatedly provided references for Jews to REFUTE the claims of Christians. That's how deceptive your Michael Brown really is, he takes this guys work and tries to turn it into the very OPPOSITE of what it was, which was a REFUTATION of Christian beliefs, NOT an endorsement of them!

"On Psalm 15 he says, "I have written at length so that you may have a ready answer to the Christians".

"Concluding his commentary on Psalm 2 he explains that he has aimed to equip Jews with the ability to handle Christian arguments; his particular concern is to show that the Christians have misread the text and read into it a series of irrational interpretations."

http://www.oztorah.com/2010/02/david-kimchis-response-to-christianity-in-his-psalm-commentary/

"RaDaK's exegesis of the Psalms shows a wide acquaintance with Christian beliefs and writings, and offers an important refutation of Christian interpretations, important for the history of Christian-Jewish polemic. Concluding his commentary on Psalm 2 he explains that he has aimed to equip Jews with the ability to handle Christian arguments; his particular concern is to show that the Christians have misread the text and read into it a series of irrational interpretations."

"Our interest in this paper is his anti-Christian polemics, especially in his Psalm commentary. Though aware that Christians would read his work, he was addressing his fellow Jews in the first instance. The rule, "Know how to answer the apikoros (one who denies God and His Torah)" refers to both the Jewish and the gentile apikoros (Avot 2:14; in the parallel text in Sanhedrin 38b Rabbi Yochanan applies it to gentiles, which in this context probably means Christians). At the end of his discussion of Psalm 2, Kimchi says, "I have instructed you what to reply to them" (i.e. the Christians). On Psalm 15 he says, "I have written at length so that you may have a ready answer to the Christians".

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 5, 2012 9:59:23 PM PST
"The translators of scripture into Greek gave the clear Greek translation meaning a woman who has never known a man."

Who cares??? The ORIGINAL is all that matters, not a translation. Who on earth would claim a translation is more accurate than the original is??

The Torah was given in Hebrew, not Greek. The Prophets wrote in Hebrew, not Greek.

The Greeks were pagans who believed in gods having children with human virgins, so that is what they wrote when they translated their bible. It's recorded that the scribes were so dishonest that they actually wrote new additions to the texts they were busy translating.

The only part of the Hebrew bible that was correctly translated was the Torah, which was done by Jewish scribes. The rest like Isaiah was not considered accurate.

Michael Brown is lying about Rabbi David Kimhee, as you are. It's considered to be idolatry in Judaism to worship any physical manifestation of God. So no Jewish Rabbi would ever claim that.

Find his real words and post them here because Michael Brown is an expert at twisting the truth into lies, just like you are with your assertions that the Greek version is more accurate than the Hebrew version is.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 5, 2012 9:33:20 PM PST
Birutegal says:
But Jewish Messiah Jesus did atone for your sins and mine, according to Isaiah 53.

You are deflecting. We were talking about Isaiah 53. Remember?

Clearly, there is nothing in Jewish literature before RASHI that interprets Isaiah 53 in the convoluted way in which he did.

========================

The translators of scripture into Greek gave the clear Greek translation meaning a woman who has never known a man.

===========

Irenaeus (A.D. 120-202) wrote:
Wherefore also the Lord Himself gave us a sign, in the depth below, and in the height above, which man did not ask for, because he never expected that a virgin could conceive, or that it was possible that one remaining a virgin could bring forth a son, and that what was thus born should be "God with us"?

========

from http://instituteofbiblicaldefense.com/2012/04/did-isaiah-predict-a-virgin-birth/
"Now we have an unbiased translation into a more literal language. Looking at the verses in question, we turn to Isaiah and find that the phrase (ha'almah) was translated into Greek as "the virgin". This means that decades before Christ was born, Jewish scholars decided that "virgin" was correct in context. It wasn't until after Christ's time that some Jews sought to change the meaning to "young woman" (not necessarily a virgin). Before and during Christ's time, there is strong evidence to believe that few Jewish scholars doubted the translation in the LXX.

So why did the Jewish scholars translate the phrase "ha'almah" as "the virgin"? The word "almah" is only used 10 times in the entire Old Testament; That isn't a large number of times. In 6 of the 10 cases, the LXX translators chose the Greek word for "virgin": Genesis 24:43, Exodus 2:8, Psalm 68:25, Song of Solomon 1:3, 6:8 and Proverbs 30:19. In no case is the word ever translated as "young woman" or anything other than an unmarried maiden of marrying age (which implies virginity). So to an ancient Jew, the idea that this could not mean a virgin young maiden was out of the question.

That said, I believe something clever is going on here; I believe that God's choice of the word "almah" was not an accident. In the near fulfillment, Isaiah married a "young maiden" and a child was born. However, since young Jewish maidens were expected to be virgins until marriage, the word can also be properly translated "virgin". So God used the word "almah" knowing that the dual meaning of the verse could be applied to both prophecies.

But wait! How did I come up with this concept of a "dual" fulfillment or a "dual" meaning? Looking at Isaiah 14, we see God humiliating Babylon and its arrogance. But then, starting in verse 12, we see this:

"How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!
You said in your heart, `I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high;
I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.'"

Either the king of Babylon made some wild, inhuman claims of becoming God, or this section is referring someone else. Even in Jesus' day, Jewish scholars agreed that this passage was about Satan, the spiritual power behind Babylon. So this section refers both to the king of Babylon and to Satan at the same time. Wow! God is clever.

So, in Isaiah we see God predicting a natural birth (as a sign), at the same time, predicting the birth of Jesus the Messiah."

DUAL PROPHECY is not uncommon throughout the Old Covenant.

=================

Dr. Michael Brown wrote that Rabbi David Kimhee, the great medieval Hebrew scholar, believed The Messiah would be divine.

Also, there are OT scriptures that speak of his divinity. They've been posted here.

"Objection: 3.22. "Jews doesn't believe in a divine Messiah."

Answer: "Judaism has never had one, official, universally accepted set of beliefs concerning the Messiah, but it is true that traditional Jewish teaching does not speak unequivocally of a divine Messiah. However, Jewish tradition often describes a highly exalted Messiah as well as a preexistent Messiah, so much so that Jewish scholars have sometimes spoken of the `semi-divine' or `quasi-divine' nature of the Messiah according to these traditions. More importantly, the Hebrew Bible itself speaks of the Messiah's divine nature, and that must be the deciding factor in what we as Jews do and do not believe." (See Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 2, pp. 210-220.)"

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 5, 2012 7:44:13 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 5, 2012 7:45:00 PM PST
How does it not relate?

Even if we believe Isaiah 53 refers to the Messiah, so what? The Jewish Messiah is not God, the Jewish Messiah does not remove sins, the Jewish Messiah does not come to replace the Law.

Without your belief in the virgin birth none of that can happen anyway because you need your human sacrifice to be "blemish-free" to make this "magic" work. Therefore the foundation of your belief rests on the supposed virgin birth, therefore, Isaiah 53 means nothing if this virgin birth story is false, which it is.

No virgin birth = a regular human Messiah = no replacing of the Laws with his supposed sacrifice.

That's why the ORIGINAL Jewish follower of Jesus never believed he was God. That's why Rashi never believed the Messiah is supposed to be God either.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 5, 2012 6:20:16 PM PST
Birutegal says:
This is not about Isaiah 53. We were discussing Isaiah 53, were we not? and you jumped to a completely different chapter and verse? Why?

Let me jog your memory a little here:
Isaiah 53 about The Messiah throughout the first 10 centuries.
RASHI, 11th c., lo and behold, no longer about The Messiah only.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 5, 2012 5:27:03 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 5, 2012 6:13:38 PM PST
"Hi Rolling Stone. Did you mean to say "Jewish documents" rather than "Christian"?? "

No, I meant what I said. All you have to do is go back to the Church Father's writings. These are the people who created your Christian church and it's beliefs. You can see that from the very beginning of Christianity the Gentile followers of Paul sought to remove Judaism and Jewish practices/influences when they were in the process of creating the church.

Therefore, when people try to claim that Jews around that time believed what you do about Isaiah they are either lying, as is the case with birutegal, or they are just ignorant of their own church history.

These documents were written somewhere around 200AD. A mere 200 years after the death of the man known as Jesus. This was long before the council of Nicaea where they defined the Christian belief that Jesus was God himself in the flesh. This was never believed by the earliest Jewish followers of Jesus.

The Jews never changed their beliefs about what Isaiah meant around 1,000 AD like you claim. Christians have been telling Jews that we are wrong about our Scriptures since practically day one when you first started reading poorly translated versions of them and believed you understood them better than we did.

Here is the proof and source:

--------------------------------

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.txt

The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus 200 AD

Chapter XLIII.--He concludes that the law had an end in Christ, who was born
of the Virgin.

...But since you and your teachers venture to affirm that in the
prophecy of Isaiah it is not said, Behold, the virgin shall conceive,'
but, Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son;' and
[since] you explain the prophecy as if [it referred] to Hezekiah, who
was your king, I shall endeavour to discuss shortly this point in
opposition to you, and to show that reference is made to Him who is
acknowledged by us as Christ.

--------------------------------------

You can see that almost 2,000 years later nothing has changed. :) We continue to tell you that Isaiah was not referring to a virgin birth and you continue to insist that he was.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 5, 2012 4:42:33 PM PST
Birutegal says:
rolling,

How about some JEWISH WRITINGS/EXPOSITIONS before RASHI claiming that Isaiah 53 is about Israel, etc.? Must be many out there, for this was too important to neglect.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 5, 2012 3:42:28 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 5, 2012 3:45:25 PM PST
Rolling Stones said, "I can show Christian documents from as early as around 200 AD that proves Jews never believed what you claim they did about Isaiah's prophecies."

Hi Rolling Stone. Did you mean to say "Jewish documents" rather than "Christian"?? I would be very interested in what you find about Isaiah 53 in Jewish documents before 1000 C.E. Please do see if you can refute this claim! You might want to start by checking out the references already listed in the website (http://www.biblestudying.net/rabbinic1.html), or get the book it is based on: "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Volume Two, Theological Objections" by Michael L. Brown.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 5, 2012 4:13:34 AM PST
Birutegal says:
rolling,

Your post is all over the map. I was speaking to the fact that the man in Isaiah 53 who suffered, died, was buried, and resurrected to rewards, is The Messiah whose death God used to atone for the sins of mankind.

And since when have "Christian documents" become acceptable. That someone claimed to overhear Jews arguing about something is evidence?! No. It is grasping at straws.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 4, 2012 8:04:46 PM PST
Rolling, from death of the body, yes, but Jesus our God saved the sinners from death of the soul. (1 John 1;29, 1 Peter 1;19, Matthew 1:21, Isaiah 53:10,12, Genesis 22:8). Peace always in the Most Precious Blood of Christ

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 4, 2012 6:24:04 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 4, 2012 9:31:54 PM PST
"RASHI in the 11th c. spawned the new interpretation of Isaiah 53. "

Completely wrong! The original Jewish followers of Jesus never believed he was God himself, or a human sacrifice. Those are pagan beliefs and have no basis in Jewish Scripture.

You can easily see what the original Jewish belief was by going back to the documents from the days of early Christianity. Jews were telling the Christians the same things back then as we do today. Rashi never spawned anything new like you claim.

I can show Christian documents from as early as around 200 AD that proves Jews never believed what you claim they did about Isaiah's prophecies.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 4, 2012 5:07:07 PM PST
Birutegal says:
Your information is right on, Janice. RASHI in the 11th c. spawned the new interpretation of Isaiah 53.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 4, 2012 4:15:33 PM PST
Nancy, apparently you haven't read the website I am referring to (for which the address was given in the first post) nor the first excerpt I posted. The site lists the Rabbinic writings they are comparing to Christian interpretations and yes, they were written after the 4th - 6th century CE. [Babylonian Talmud (~600 C.E.), Haggada, Halakha, Ibn Ezra (~1200 C.E.), Jerusalem Talmud, Kabbalah, Midrash, Mishnah (~200 C.E.), Mishneh Torah (~1200 C.E.), Oral Torah, Palestinian Talmud (400 C.E.), Radak (~1200 C.E.), Rashi, Response Literature (600 C.E.) Shulkan Arukh, (~1500 C.E.), Targum (put in written form between 300 and 1200 C.E.), Tosephtah, and Zohar (~1200 C.E.)]

In my second post (first excerpts posted), you will see that the text said, "The interpretation that Isaiah 53 refers to the nation of Israel as a whole and not to a specific individual is a relatively recent view that does not appear in rabbinic literature until the eleventh century A.D. For nearly a thousand years rabbinic tradition understood Isaiah 53 to refer to a specific Messianic individual."

So in regards to interpretations of Isaiah 53, we are obviously only having to go back to 1000 CE, so your argument is without merit.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 4, 2012 2:11:41 PM PST
Birutegal says:
In reply to your post on Dec 3, 2012 11:54:41 PM PST
Last edited by the author 13 hours ago
Rolling stones says:
"See Rabbi J. H. Hertz on Lev 17:11."

So why didn't Rabbi Hertz become a Christian then?

"as translated in the Soncino talmud (RASHI)"

So why didn't Rashi become a Christian then?

biru: God only knows; however, numerous rabbis have recognized Jesus as The Messiah.

=================================

All of these people were referring to animal sacrifices, not human sacrifices. Jews never sacrificed humans, pagans did.

biru: No one sacrificed Jesus, either. Christianity, being an extension and completion of Revelation, never enjoins anyone to sacrifice a human being. Your objection in this situation makes no sense.

====================================

"The renowned Jewish sage, RASHI, explained, "For every creature is dependent on blood, therefore I have given it to you on the altar to atone for the life of man; let life come and atone for the life." Thus, he taught the "principle of substitution," of "life for life."

This is a total lie. Rashi did NOT teach the "principle of substitution", a life for a life. All Rashi was affirming is that blood is to be used for atoning of sins ONLY. Which means that it's ONLY purpose is that, nothing else like eating. That is completely different to saying that only blood can atone for sins. Poor people were allowed to use flour, so whomever claimed Rashi taught this "principle of substitution" is flat out lying.

biru: You have proven nothing that would make RASHI's teachings a lie. God said that it is the BLOOD which ATONES. Your argument is with God. I happen to take His Word for it.

======================================

If Rashi taught this/believed this himself then he would have become a Christian, because that is what Christians then try use to claim Jesus blood can be used instead of an animal.

How can you quote from Rashi to justify your pagan beliefs when Rashi himself never believed that the death of Jesus can atone for your sins? What an absurd idea, to quote from a Jew who never believed in what you do in order to try and claim that Jewish Law supports your pagan beliefs in human sacrifices.

biru: Nothing pagan about what both Testaments teach.

==========================================

You have to use half-truths like this to justify your lies because the whole truth proves you wrong, and that whole truth is that neither Rashi nor Rabbi Hertz believed what you do.

Therefore, using their words to try justify your beliefs is just dishonest...

biru: You keep repeating this mantra without any substantiation. The above people verified the fact that the BLOOD is used to ATONE.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 11:54:41 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 4, 2012 12:39:03 AM PST
"See Rabbi J. H. Hertz on Lev 17:11."

So why didn't Rabbi Hertz become a Christian then?

"as translated in the Soncino talmud (RASHI)"

So why didn't Rashi become a Christian then?

All of these people were referring to animal sacrifices, not human sacrifices. Jews never sacrificed humans, pagans did.

"The renowned Jewish sage, RASHI, explained, "For every creature is dependent on blood, therefore I have given it to you on the altar to atone for the life of man; let life come and atone for the life." Thus, he taught the "principle of substitution," of "life for life."

This is a total lie. Rashi did NOT teach the "principle of substitution", a life for a life. All Rashi was affirming is that blood is to be used for atoning of sins ONLY. Which means that it's ONLY purpose is that, nothing else like eating. That is completely different to saying that only blood can atone for sins. Poor people were allowed to use flour, so whomever claimed Rashi taught this "principle of substitution" is flat out lying.

If Rashi taught this/believed this himself then he would have become a Christian, because that is what Christians then try use to claim Jesus blood can be used instead of an animal.

How can you quote from Rashi to justify your pagan beliefs when Rashi himself never believed that the death of Jesus can atone for your sins? What an absurd idea, to quote from a Jew who never believed in what you do in order to try and claim that Jewish Law supports your pagan beliefs in human sacrifices.

You have to use half-truths like this to justify your lies because the whole truth proves you wrong, and that whole truth is that neither Rashi nor Rabbi Hertz believed what you do.

Therefore, using their words to try justify your beliefs is just dishonest...

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 9:53:15 PM PST
Birutegal says:
As God said, rolling, blood was necessary for atonement.

Lev 5:11,12 The JPS version and the NIV are nearly identical in that they say the flour was put "...UPON the OFFERINGS of the LORD made by fire."

or

"...and burn it ON TOP OF THE OFFERINGS made to the LORD by fire."

There had to be an animal burning as an atonement, both morning and night. The poor had their flour sprinkled upon these animals..

================

You either believe what God clearly said or you have to deny the clear words of Leviticus 17:11 that the BLOOD was given for ATONEMENT. It is irrelevant where this was said; the fact remains that it was the blood that atoned.

The annual atonement included only blood.

Atonement and cleansing went hand-in-hand with blood. "...whenever atonement is mentioned, 49 times in all, it is ALWAYS in conjunction with BLOOD sacrifices."

The renowned Jewish sage, RASHI, explained, "For every creature is dependent on blood, therefore I have given it to you on the altar to atone for the life of man; let life come and atone for the life." Thus, he taught the "principle of substitution," of "life for life."

See Rabbi J. H. Hertz on Lev 17:11.

and

"Does the laying on of the hand (on the sacrifice) make atonement for one? Does not atonement come through the blood, as it is said: For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life!...Does the waving make atonement? Is it not the blood which makes atonement, as it is written, 'For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life."
b. Yoma 5a, as translated in the Soncino talmud (RASHI)
b. Zevahim 6a (gives the fundamental principle--'iqqar--that atonement does not exist without blood)
Menahort 93b
Sifra 4:9
b. Pesahim 59b (Tosafot)

I could go cite many more renowned Jewish scholars supporting this 'iqqar.
Proverbial in nature is the prevalent phrase in the talmud, "There is no atonement without the blood."

'ein kapparah 'ella'be-dam=there is no ritual expiation except by means of blood.

[Not sure where my notes were gleaned from. Maybe Dr. Brown's books.]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Christianity forum
Participants:  12
Total posts:  78
Initial post:  Dec 2, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 6, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions