Atonement (MERGED)

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheInquisitor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheInquisitor

Guest
Where is it required in the Old testament for all sins to be Atoned with Blood and sacrifice? It seems a lot of Jewish apologetics say that Blood was not required, just repentance. How can I refute this?

Here is an example of what they say:
**
But isn’t a blood sacrifice required in order to obtain forgiveness?**
No. Although animal sacrifice is one means of obtaining forgiveness, there are non-animal offerings as well, and there are other means for obtaining forgiveness that do not involve sacrifices at all. The Biblical book of Jonah tells of an entire community condemned to destruction that was forgiven when they simply repented and fasted, without ever offering any sacrifice, blood or otherwise. (Jonah 3)
Click to expand...
Code: 
The passage that people ordinarily cite for the notion that blood is required is Leviticus 17:11: "For the soul of the flesh is in the blood and I have assigned it for you upon the altar to provide atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that atones for the soul." But the passage that this verse comes from is not about atonement; it is about dietary laws, and the passage says only that blood is used to obtain atonement; not that blood is the only means for obtaining atonement. Leviticus 17:10-12 could be paraphrased as "Don't eat blood, because blood is used in atonement rituals; therefore, don't eat blood."
Click to expand...
Obviously this goes largely against what Catholics believe because they suppose that it is only by the blood of Christ we are saved. So how I can refute this?
 
Anybody? This has been a little troubling in my studies and I am struggling to find an answer.
 
It has to do with God establishing a covenant.

When God established the Mosaic covenant animals were sacrificed and the blood was sprinkled on all the people. With the New covenant God sacrificed His Son not animals and we are to be sprinkled with the blood of the covenantal sacrifice.

The book of Hebrews talks about this.
 
Some related readings for thinking on this subject…one must not there can be many aspects to explore (these are to get you started)

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/angelus/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20090705_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090107_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/lent/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20091030_lent-2010_en.html

CCC

433 The name of the Savior God was invoked only once in the year by the high priest in atonement for the sins of Israel, after he had sprinkled the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies with the sacrificial blood. The mercy seat was the place of God’s presence. When St. Paul speaks of Jesus whom “God put forward as an expiation by his blood”, he means that in Christ’s humanity “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.”

And here from Dr. Hahn-- you can perhaps find resources here on…blood…covenant etc

salvationhistory.com

PS: there were various kinds of “sacrifices”…thanksgiving etc…

Oh --also you may also find more of interest in Pope Benedict XVI book Jesus of Nazareth Vol II (both volumes are excellent …of course)
 
The Jewish apologists don’t understand their own faith.

The people of Ninevah were not Jewish and were not under the covenant. That is why they were not required to offer sacrifice. The covenant which God made with Israel at Sinai put the Jews under the law, and required sacrifice.

They don’t even know their own faith and the history of their own religion.

-Tim-
 
TheInquisitor said:
Where is it required in the Old testament for all sins to be Atoned with Blood and sacrifice? It seems a lot of Jewish apologetics say that Blood was not required, just repentance. How can I refute this?

Here is an example of what they say:

Obviously this goes largely against what Catholics believe because they suppose that it is only by the blood of Christ we are saved. So how I can refute this?
Click to expand...
The correct answer is somewhere in the middle, but that there is an important note to make.

The Jews of today are not following the same religion as the Old Testament. They are following certain parts of it, but also they are ignoring important parts. For example, the Old Testament required the Levitical Priesthood for all kinds of sacrifices, but this lineage has been lost for 2,000 years, the OT also required a Temple for sacrifices, but this has been gone for 2,000 years. Thus, whenever the Old Testament commands sacrifices be done, this is impossible to do for them, and so they are forced to ignore whole sections of Scripture, especially books like Leviticus. As a result, they Jews after Jesus had to re-shape Judaism into a non-sacrificial religion, which in turn made it a different Judaism than the one that was practiced from Moses to Jesus. So when you talk to modern Jews, you need to realize this is a different religion than historical Judaism.

To understand the gravity of this problem, it would be like a Catholic saying that Apostolic Succession and the Eucharist were lost and not practiced for 2,000 years and yet we’re still following the same Catholicism as those who had Apostolic Succession and Eucharist. Obviously, this is absurd, as it would make it a very different religion, even if many things were kept.

Now in terms of whether a blood Sacrifice is absolutely required, the answer is no, since God could have had set up the atonement a number of ways. And since the most important thing a person can offer is an act of love, love must be at the heart of any offering to God. But God felt it was most fitting to express His love and relationship through Sacrifices, and so this is what He officially instituted, and this was all a foreshadowing of Christ’s Martyrdom.
 
Catholic_Dude said:
To understand the gravity of this problem, it would be like a Catholic saying that Apostolic Succession and the Eucharist were lost and not practiced for 2,000 years and yet we’re still following the same Catholicism as those who had Apostolic Succession and Eucharist. Obviously, this is absurd, as it would make it a very different religion, even if many things were kept.
Click to expand...
It is interesting that, in Japan, for about 250 years, they had no clergy and no Eucharist–just (lay) catechists and baptism. This was about 1587-1865. Some remained faithful, but were aware that much was missing from their lived faith. Others drifted away, incorporating ancestor worship or losing the meaning of their prayers. Still, it was a unusual experience in the Church.
 
what about Leviticus 5:11-13? That sacrifice certainly didn’t require blood.
 
Sacrifices did not have to involve blood. There where various kinds of sacrifices.
 
2099 It is right to offer sacrifice to God as a sign of adoration and gratitude, supplication and communion: “Every action done so as to cling to God in communion of holiness, and thus achieve blessedness, is a true sacrifice.”
 
TheInquisitor said:
what about Leviticus 5:11-13? That sacrifice certainly didn’t require blood.
Click to expand...
My point is, this verse seems to indicate itself that blood isn’t required for forgiveness of sins. I see Jewish apologetics use this in order to say that Christ’s sacrifice was not necessary if this the case, how do I refute this?
 
Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. (John 1:29) In the Old Testament, before the passover, a lamb was sacrificed and eaten. The sacrifice was offered at the command of God the night before the Exodus from Egypt, and which they ate with special ceremonies according to the direction given to Moses by God. The blood of this sacrifice was sprinkled on the door-posts of the Israelites as a sign to the angel of death, when passing through the land to slay the first-born of the Egyptians. The angel of death “passed over” the houses.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The Old Testament speaks of the blood sacrifices:

And he shall offer every day for a holocaust to the Lord, a lamb of the same year without blemish: he shall offer it always in the morning. Ezechiel 46:13

And offer of the flocks an ewe lamb, or a she goat, and the priest shall pray for him and for his sin: Lev. 5:6

*And shall consecrate to the Lord the days of his separation, offering a lamb of one year for sin: yet so that the former days be made void, because his sanctification was profaned.–Numbers 6:12

Leviticus 9:3 found 3
And to the children of Israel thou shalt say: Take ye a he goat for sin, and a calf, and a lamb, both of a year old, and without blemish for a holocaust…*

ETC.
 
What about leviticus 5:11? Blood wasn’t required for that sin.
 
TheInquisitor said:
My point is, this verse seems to indicate itself that blood isn’t required for forgiveness of sins. I see Jewish apologetics use this in order to say that Christ’s sacrifice was not necessary if this the case, how do I refute this?
Click to expand...
It’s not about blood. They want to make blood the subject, but it is not about blood. It’s about sacrifice. A sacrifice of some kind is required. An animal from the herd may not be as big of a sacrifice as is some food from a poor person.

Does God desire sacrifice or does he not? Have they not read the Psalms?

For you do not desire sacrifice or I would give it;
a burnt offering you would not accept.
My sacrifice, O God, is a contrite spirit;
a contrite, humbled heart, O God, you will not scorn.
Treat Zion kindly according to your good will;
build up the walls of Jerusalem.
Then you will desire the sacrifices of the just,
burnt offering and whole offerings;
then they will offer up young bulls on your altar.(Psalm 51:18-21)

First God does not desire a sacrifice, but then when our spirit is contrite and our hearts are humble, he does desire a sacrifice.

The point is that sacrifice of some kind is required, and a humble heart and contrite spirit is just the beginning. For those under the covenant and who have the means, sacrificing a life is a requirement of the covenant. For those who don’t have the means, giving up some vitally important food is required.

-Tim-
 
Ok, here’s another question. Why wasn’t Jesus killed on the day of atonement but instead on passover? The day of atonement seems to have been a better day for Christ to die. Also, Christ didn’t have his blood sprinkled on an altar, so does that negate his sacrifice?

And just to let you guys know, I’m not attacking the faith. I have a large desire to be a Catholic. However, I won’t be one without it being completely reasonable. So just asking, these questions have given me a large amount of stress haha.

Thanks 🙂
 
TheInquisitor said:
Ok, here’s another question. Why wasn’t Jesus killed on the day of atonement but instead on passover? The day of atonement seems to have been a better day for Christ to die. Also, Christ didn’t have his blood sprinkled on an altar, so does that negate his sacrifice?

And just to let you guys know, I’m not attacking the faith. I have a large desire to be a Catholic. However, I won’t be one without it being completely reasonable. So just asking, these questions have given me a large amount of stress haha.

Thanks 🙂
Click to expand...
The day of atonement was 6 months before Passover. When God led the people out of Egypt he started the Passover where they ate a lamb and put blood on the doors to alert the angle not to kill the firstborn boy, and so every year the Jews would celebrate Passover at that one year anniversay to remember and thank God for taking them out of slavery.
God became displeased with their sacrifices and then Jesus was born. Jesus became the perfect sacrifice for fogiveness of sins and salvation, and so thats why Passover, and for Passover we are to thank Jesus for what he did. Jesus became like the perfect lamb.

Jesus was the perfect sacrifice, and that is what Communion is about to remember what Jesus did at the Cross for us.

Someone may explain it better.
 
Oh please don’t worry about asking questions, theres a lot to the Catholic faith, but there are many knowledgable people here and besides thats what this forum is for. 😃
 
TheInquisitor said:
Why wasn’t Jesus killed on the day of atonement but instead on passover? The day of atonement seems to have been a better day for Christ to die.
Click to expand...
For the Passover sacrifice the Paschal Lamb is the sacrifice that the Torah mandates to be brought on the eve of Passover. The lamb was necessarily a male and without blemish.
Also, Christ didn’t have his blood sprinkled on an altar, so does that negate his sacrifice?
Click to expand...
The altar was the cross, which was soaked in His blood.
 
Jewish apologetics however will tell you that passover was never meant for forgiveness of sins, plus they will tell you that sacrifices were only for unintentional sins. What about that?
 
TheInquisitor said:
Jewish apologetics however will tell you that passover was never meant for forgiveness of sins, plus they will tell you that sacrifices were only for unintentional sins. What about that?
Click to expand...
Realize that people will argue to argue; atheists argue against the existence of God regardless of the mountains of evidence presented to them. This is because they do not have the gift of faith.

Saul of Tarsus was “of the stock of Israel—a Hebrew of the Hebrews—a Pharisee”(Phil. 3:5) He was raised in Jerusalem and learned “at the feet of Gamaliel” (Acts 22:3) and knew the Mosaic Law inside out. Before he received the light of faith he fiercely persecuted the Church. After his conversion he explained: '…those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." Hebrews 10:3-4


Here’s a short video by Catholic Answers which touches on the subject.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top