Atonement (MERGED)

[TheInquisitor]

Ok, I understand the need for blood atonement. Here’s another question.

Did Christ’s blood need to be sprinkled on an altar? I hear that this is the cross. How can the cross be an Altar? Also, A priest needed to sprinkle the blood on an altar (Leviticus 16:32). How did that happen?

Sorry, I’ve got more. My head has been swimming lately lol.

On the day of atonement when the the sacrifices were made for Israel’s sins. The blood made atonement, but the scapegoat was the one that took the sins it’s head, not the sacrifice (Leviticus 16:22). This seems to contradict with Christ taking on the sins of the world.

Thanks for anyone who has been taking my questions and answering. You guys have been a great help .

 

[TimothyH]

Ok, I understand the need for blood atonement. Here’s another question.

Did Christ’s blood need to be sprinkled on an altar? I hear that this is the cross. How can the cross be an Altar? Also, A priest needed to sprinkle the blood on an altar (Leviticus 16:32). How did that happen?

Sorry, I’ve got more. My head has been swimming lately lol.

On the day of atonement when the the sacrifices were made for Israel’s sins. The blood made atonement, but the scapegoat was the one that took the sins it’s head, not the sacrifice (Leviticus 16:22). This seems to contradict with Christ taking on the sins of the world.

Thanks for anyone who has been taking my questions and answering. You guys have been a great help .

Forget about the day of atonement. The central event in Jewis history was the exodus from Egypt and the passover. Jewis belief was that the Messiah would be a new Moses who would insitute a new Exodus.

About eight days after he said this, he took Peter, John, and James and went up the mountain to pray. While he was praying his face changed in appearance and his clothing became dazzling white. And behold, two men were conversing with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his exodus that he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem. (Luke 9:28:31)

The new exodus which the Messiah was to institute was not just a physical flight to a new land. The land itself would be transformed into heaven. Paul speaks about a “Heavenly Jerusalem” and John says that heaven itself will decend to earth and transform earth at the end of time. At the end of time, the earth will be transformed and God will dwell with man just as he did when Adam and Eve walked with God in the garden.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth. The former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. I also saw the holy city, a new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, God’s dwelling is with the human race. He will dwell with them and they will be his people and God himself will always be with them [as their God]. (Revelation 21:1-3)

Exodus and Passover were the central events in Jewish history and the events they looked forward to at the end of time. Jesus institutes this new exodus. Forget about the day of atonement.

As for blood being splashed on the altar, Christ’s blood poured from his side as he hung on the cross.

…one soldier thrust his lance into his side, and immediately blood and water flowed out. (John 19:34)

His blood spilled out on the earth and thereby purified all of creation.

-Tim-

 

[TheInquisitor]

Forget about the day of atonement. The central event in Jewis history was the exodus from Egypt and the passover. Jewis belief was that the Messiah would be a new Moses who would insitute a new Exodus.

About eight days after he said this, he took Peter, John, and James and went up the mountain to pray. While he was praying his face changed in appearance and his clothing became dazzling white. And behold, two men were conversing with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his exodus that he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem. (Luke 9:28:31)

The new exodus which the Messiah was to institute was not just a physical flight to a new land. The land itself would be transformed into heaven. Paul speaks about a “Heavenly Jerusalem” and John says that heaven itself will decend to earth and transform earth at the end of time. At the end of time, the earth will be transformed and God will dwell with man just as he did when Adam and Eve walked with God in the garden.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth. The former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. I also saw the holy city, a new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, God’s dwelling is with the human race. He will dwell with them and they will be his people and God himself will always be with them [as their God]. (Revelation 21:1-3)

Exodus and Passover were the central events in Jewish history and the events they looked forward to at the end of time. Jesus institutes this new exodus. Forget about the day of atonement.

As for blood being splashed on the altar, Christ’s blood poured from his side as he hung on the cross.

…one soldier thrust his lance into his side, and immediately blood and water flowed out. (John 19:34)

His blood spilled out on the earth and thereby purified all of creation.

-Tim-

Why forget about the day of atonement? That’s the only sacrifice in the whole old testament that was for the forgiveness of intentional sins. That’s freaking huge in my opinion. Passover commemorated a huge event in Jewish history, but it wasn’t for the atonement of sins.

I must be missing something. I thought the goal of Christ was to make the final atoning sacrifice for us. Is that right?

How can the earth be a valid altar from a Jewish perspective?

 

[Luvtosew]

Well when they sinned they put their hands on the lambs head while it was alive and their sin went into the lamb then they killed the lamb and offered it to God, transferred their sin;

and the blood was sprinkled on the altar horns and poured out in front of the altar.

If the whole community sinned, the Priests would put their hands on the sins offerings and transfer the sins and then sprinkle blood on the altar

No one was ever to eat or drink blood.

Jesus took out sins and then shed his blood for our salvation, he was a pure lamb. The last blood sacrifice that was ever or needed to be ever again offered. Now our sacrifice is pure worship and sorrow for our sins from our heart.

(It is confusing as they had so many different offerings and well over the years God got fed up with their offerings as they weren’t pure or heartfelt either, they offered blemished lambs and their heart was not into it so God had to send his son) to save us sinners.!)

 

[TheInquisitor]

Well when they sinned they put their hands on the lambs head while it was alive and their sin went into the lamb then they killed the lamb and offered it to God, transferred their sin;

and the blood was sprinkled on the altar horns and poured out in front of the altar.

If the whole community sinned, the Priests would put their hands on the sins offerings and transfer the sins and then sprinkle blood on the altar

No one was ever to eat or drink blood.

Jesus took out sins and then shed his blood for our salvation, he was a pure lamb. The last blood sacrifice that was ever or needed to be ever again offered. Now our sacrifice is pure worship and sorrow for our sins from our heart.

No, they put their hands on the goat and put the sins on it’s head and then sent it into the wilderness and then sacrificed something else. Leviticus 16:22

 

[Luvtosew]

No, they put their hands on the goat and sent it into the wilderness and then sacrificed something else. Leviticus 16:22

Oh ok thanks for pointing that out, I’ll have to reread, but you do see how Jesus took our sins then hey.

 

[Luvtosew]

Ok so on the day of atonement there were two goats , one to sacrifice and one as a scapegoat to carry sins away. also the high priests sacrificed a bull.
Wow hard to get all that straight. Confusing to say the least. Good Lord, thank God for Jesus.

 

[meltzerboy]

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-

Not true, Tim. Blood sacrifice in itself was NEVER the preferred method of individual atonement, and was actually of little use unless accompanied by prayer. The Hebrew Bible, especially the Torah, as well as the Oral Law, is explicit in many passages that prayer is the principal means of atonement, as well as seeking forgiveness from others we may have wronged. In the latter case, prayer to G-d is NOT sufficient. In addition, charitable deeds is a means of atonement, also more important than blood sacrifice. Incense was another method used in ancient Judaism. Prayer is particularly the form of atonement essential in the matter of INTENTIONAL wrongdoings against G-d, though the atonement on Yom Kippur covers both intentional and unintentional sins, but NOT those committed against others, to whom we must make amends directly.

 

[Luvtosew]

So what is the meaning of sacrifice today for the Jewish people? I"m confused , is it prayer from the heart and charible acts?
If the temple is ever rebuild will the Jewish go back to animal sacrifice?

In Christianity it is confessing and repenting (turn away) and heartful prayer, and giving ourselves to Jesus all of us.

 

[meltzerboy]

So what is the meaning of sacrifice today for the Jewish people? I"m confused , is it prayer from the heart and charible acts?
If the temple is ever rebuild will the Jewish go back to animal sacrifice?

In Christianity it is confessing and repenting (turn away) and heartful prayer, and giving ourselves to Jesus all of us.

Yes, atonement means sincere prayer to G-d and charitable acts, as well as seeking forgiveness from other people. Some Orthodox Jews would be ready to resume animal sacrifice as well when–not if–the Temple is rebuilt. But that kind of sacrifice will never replace the other forms, even though all the commandments relating to the Temple remain “on the books.”

 

[Luvtosew]

Yes, atonement means sincere prayer to G-d and charitable acts, as well as seeking forgiveness from other people. Some Orthodox Jews would be ready to resume animal sacrifice as well when–not if–the Temple is rebuilt. But that kind of sacrifice will never replace the other forms, even though all the commandments relating to the Temple remain “on the books.”

True, the animal sacrifices would not replace sincere pray and charitable acts. Yes when the temple is rebuilt is a better way to look at it. For Christian there are no more sacrifices left (animal) just ours.

 

[TheInquisitor]

Not true, Tim. Blood sacrifice in itself was NEVER the preferred method of individual atonement, and was actually of little use unless accompanied by prayer. The Hebrew Bible, especially the Torah, as well as the Oral Law, is explicit in many passages that prayer is the principal means of atonement, as well as seeking forgiveness from others we may have wronged. In the latter case, prayer to G-d is NOT sufficient. In addition, charitable deeds is a means of atonement, also more important than blood sacrifice. Incense was another method used in ancient Judaism. Prayer is particularly the form of atonement essential in the matter of INTENTIONAL wrongdoings against G-d, though the atonement on Yom Kippur covers both intentional and unintentional sins, but NOT those committed against others, to whom we must make amends directly.

Any responses catholic answers? It’s Jewish responses like thses that bother me so. Claims like these totally negate the need for Christ’s sacrifice.

 

[meltzerboy]

Any responses catholic answers? It’s Jewish responses like thses that bother me so. Claims like these totally negate the need for Christ’s sacrifice.

Now I feel guilty! Putting on my “Christian hat,” Jesus’ sacrifice is a vicarious atonement for OTHERS (namely, humanity), rather than an individual atonement for ONESELF. While Judaism believes mainly in individual atonement through prayer and deeds, Christianity believes that G-d has offered Himself to redeem all of humanity. Our religious beliefs may differ, but one belief does not negate the other. The blood element is the ritualistic part of the sacrifice since blood represents the life-force or soul. But the most essential part of the sacrifice, whether of an animal or of Jesus, is based on G-d’s love for us.

 

[TheInquisitor]

Now I feel guilty! Putting on my “Christian hat,” Jesus’ sacrifice is a vicarious atonement for OTHERS (namely, humanity), rather than an individual atonement for ONESELF. While Judaism believes mainly in individual atonement through prayer and deeds, Christianity believes that G-d has offered Himself to redeem all of humanity. Our religious beliefs may differ, but one belief does not negate the other. The blood element is the ritualistic part of the sacrifice since blood represents the life-force or soul. But the most essential part of the sacrifice, whether of an animal or of Jesus, is based on G-d’s love for us.

Haha, no need to feel guilty. You believe what you do for a reason. I need to believe what I do for a reason as well.

 

[chosen_people]

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?

Well the first point is that the very concepts of celebrating the birth of a god, of marking a god’s death and ressurection, earth as a place where a god would walk and live as a separate entity with a separate name, limited in form and able to be conceived in a human form, limited in power for the very way of redemption of sin, the god making the sacrifice to man rather than man sacrificing to the god, for a sin of man, the use of human blood for a human sacrifice, all of these concepts are an anathema to Jewish monotheistic belief and to God’s Torah given a Mt. Sinai, not as a revelation to an individual or to twelve individuals but before the entire Jewish nation in an everlasting covenant.

1. The concept of vicarious atonement, the idea that one person may atone for the sins of another,is rejected in the Jewish scriptures. Moses, the greatest of all prophets,offered to erase himself from God’s book for the Jewish people and God refused. Each person is responsible for their own sins (Exodus 32:33 - 35)and see Ezekiel 18:21-23,27-28)
2. In Judaism blood was never the only way to atone for sin (see for example 2Samuel 12:13, Leviticus 5:12-13,Numbers 17:11-13,Proverbs 10:2,11:4,16:6,21:3, Hosea 6:6, Daniel 4:24 (27 in Christian bibles),Exodus 30:15, Leviticus 26:40-42, Numbers 31:50, Ezekiel 18:21 and Daniel 9:18- examples of repentance for personal intentional sin without blood and without belief in Jesus in the post Temple period Isaiah 27:9,40:1 and Ezekiel 33:11-16
3. Animal sacrifices in the Temple were only permitted for unintentional sin (Numbers 15:27, Leviticus 4:27,28, 5:18)
4. While there were guilt offerings for the collective of the Jewish people on Yom Kippur, animal sacrifice was never permitted in Judaism for intentional sin. That would be immoral. Imagine if you could commit a horrible intentional act and all you had to do was to sacrifice an animal. This would lead to horrible behavior.

King Solomon who built the first Temple and began the temple sacrificial system prophesied that someday the Jews would be exiled from Judea and that in exile confessional prayer alone would bring about atonement for all sins (1 Kings 8:46-50, 2 Chronicles 6:36-39)

In exile without a Temple the Prophet Hosea in Hosea 14:3 that prayer would substitute for the sacrifice of bulls
"קְחוּ עִמָּכֶם דְּבָרִים, וְשׁוּבוּ אֶל-יְהוָה; אִמְרוּ אֵלָיו, כָּל-תִּשָּׂא עָו‍ֹן וְקַח-טוֹב, וּנְשַׁלְּמָה פָרִים, שְׂפָתֵינוּ.
Take words with you and return to Hashem`say to Him, "May You forgive all iniquity and accept good [intentions], and let our lips substitute for bulls. (Christian translators try to obscure the verse and the phrase “let our lips substitute for bulls” because since prayer replaced animal sacrifice after the destruction of the Temple then the whole idea of the Jesus sacrifice is irrelevant).

 

[TheInquisitor]

I am a protestant currently trying to convert to Catholicism and I have a question on Atonement.

How does the protestant view of Penal Substitution differ from the Catholic view? I grew up with the Penal substitution doctrine and and I am having trouble understanding the Catholic version (satisfaction view?) of how it works and how it differs from what I grew up with.

 

[po18guy]

The Protestant world has developed a vastly different language from the Catholic and Orthodox Christians. As well, differing denominations may assign their own unique definition to some terms. Different names or phrases may indicate the same subject, and that can be the cause of confusion and disagreement. Please define the term “penal substitution” as you understand it.

 

[TheInquisitor]

The Protestant world has developed a vastly different language from the Catholic and Orthodox Christians. As well, differing denominations may assign their own unique definition to some terms. Different names or phrases may indicate the same subject, and that can be the cause of confusion and disagreement. Please define the term “penal substitution” as you understand it.

Penal substitution from what I learned is that the penalty for sin was completely required. The sacrifice of Christ is a legal transaction so that God wouldn’t punish us. Either we get punished or He does. I thought this was what most Christians believed but it seems Catholics have a different view of this that I don’t quite understand and am having trouble finding the difference.

 

[fhansen]

I am a protestant currently trying to convert to Catholicism and I have a question on Atonement.

How does the protestant view of Penal Substitution differ from the Catholic view? I grew up with the Penal substitution doctrine and and I am having trouble understanding the Catholic version (satisfaction view?) of how it works and how it differs from what I grew up with.

**In simplest terms the Atonement is the love of God in action-to demonstrate to His wayward, mistrustful, even hateful creation what He should never have to prove, but is kind enough to prove anyway, that He is humble and kind at heart, that He loves man with a love so powerful and unconditional that we can’t even begin to fathom it-except, perhaps, dimly at first, by looking to and contemplating the Cross. The Cross is the love of God. The Cross is the righteous dying for the unrighteous, reconciling us while we’re yet sinners, in spite of our sin; the Atonement literally meaning at-one-ment. Theories that try to take it much further than that stray too far into unfamiliar waters-though it’s always good to keep trying.

I think it’s also not inappropriate to consider that, while God in nowise created evil, a creation that was nonetheless destined to fall was still His creation, His work, a part or extension of Himself, and therefore, perhaps due to nothing else than His benevolence, love, and will in general, was destined to be redeemed-His own justice would’ve demanded that-or else why bother to create it to begin with? IOW, the God who created a world which would fall would also necessarily provide the resolution to its falleness; He’s responsible in that way for the work of His own hands. And this also, I think, helps to explain why He would lower Himself to become one of us, showing His own originally good creation the way back to Goodness.

In knowing the Fall would occur and deeming it worthwhile to create anyway, God pursued a plan from the beginning that means mans’ redemption is part of His overall creative process for His universe.

If you haven’t already, it’d be profitable to read the Catholic Encyclopedia here:**
newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

 

[po18guy]

Penal substitution from what I learned is that the penalty for sin was completely required. The sacrifice of Christ is a legal transaction so that God wouldn’t punish us. Either we get punished or He does. I thought this was what most Christians believed but it seems Catholics have a different view of this that I don’t quite understand and am having trouble finding the difference.

Christ made atonement for the sins of the world, but it was not universal atonement - we must decide for Christ and keep His commands. His Blood was shed for the “many” (Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24), but not for all, as He knew those who would reject Him. We must produce fruit in keeping with repentance (Matthew 3:8, Luke 3:8). The Catholic Church teaches that there are two types of punishment for sin: temporal and eternal. It is not as simple as believing the Jesus paid the price, so we are home free. An example of this is carelessly playing baseball in your yard, and breaking a neighbor’s window. The neighbor may forgive you, but what about the damage - the broken window? It must also be repaired. That is the temporal punishment due you. Christ made it possible for our sins to be forgiven, but we must cooperate with His grace. In contrast, eternal punishment is condemnation to hell. Here is a link to the catechism regarding penance and punishment. Do you have a catechism? At about $8, it is a great teacher of Christian teaching. Perhaps even more helpful to you would be Catholicism for Dummies. It is a simply excellent book that may also be used as a catechism. Ask the RCIA director if they have copies (they should, IMO).