| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"NeroZero" |
| Date: |
16 Feb 2006 04:19:20 AM |
| Object: |
Jesus, Savior From Rome, King Arthur.. |
The Christ saves Judaism from Rome and they rather return to it instead
of admitting that the Lord deliberated them also from Spiritual Egypt
(Firstborn).
(HWA - Dr. Tkach Dateline!!)
.
|
|
| User: "NeroZero" |
|
| Title: What Is The SOLE Position Of Jesus On OT - Animal Sacrifices |
16 Feb 2006 04:40:09 AM |
|
|
G-d liked them but He?
.
|
|
|
| User: "NeroZero" |
|
| Title: Was Jesus to abolish actually the state of Israel? |
16 Feb 2006 06:28:09 PM |
|
|
During the time of Xion! Furthermore what is the basis for the rel.
1948 re-instatement of the modern state of Israel (British-Israelism)...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Jesus to abolish actually the state of Israel? |
17 Feb 2006 12:16:40 AM |
|
|
once again, `korbanot` have nothing to do with "vicarious sacrifice"
they are a mechanism for all members of the Klal to function as
`kohanim` in a limited way and thus individually "draw near" [korban]
to Y_H_V_H.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Vicarious sacrifices |
17 Feb 2006 06:23:52 AM |
|
|
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
once again, `korbanot` have nothing to do with "vicarious sacrifice"
========
"It is the blood that makes atonement for the soul."
- Leviticus 17:11
"The Torah now lists offerings that are *required* in order to atone
for sins, in contrast to the offerings of the previous 3 chapters that
one brings voluntarily in order to elevate oneself spiritually."
[emphasis in the original]
- footnote to Leviticus Chapter 4, Stone Edition Chumash, Mesorah /
Artscroll Publishers
"The primary atonement of an offering is effected by the blood
service, not by the confession (see below at [Leviticus] 17:11), but
the confession is an essential part of repentance, and hence of
atonement ([Leviticus] 1:4, Yoma 5a)."
- footnote to Leviticus Chapter 16, Stone Edition Chumash, Mesorah /
Artscroll Publishers
Rashi - "The soul of every creature is bound up in its blood;
therefore I gave it to atone for the soul of man - that one soul
should come and atone for the other."
Aben Ezra - "One soul is a substitute for the other."
Moses ben Nachmann - "I gave the soul for you on the altar, that the
soul of the animal should be an atonement for the soul of the man."
One soul substituted for another soul is by definition vicarious
sacrifice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amangie Machque" |
|
| Title: Re: Vicarious sacrifices |
17 Feb 2006 08:36:53 AM |
|
|
joesterl wrote
: "It is the blood that makes atonement for the soul."
: - Leviticus 17:11
11 Ki-nefesh habasar badam hi va'ani netativ lachem al-hamizbe'ach lechaper
al-nafshoteichem ki-hadam hu banefesh yechaper
For [the] soul of the body is in the blood and I have given it to you [to be
placed] on the Altar to achieve atonement for your souls, for it is the
blood that will achieve atonement for the soul.
You for got about the portion of the verse that says, "I have given it to
you [to be placed] on the Altar to achieve atonement for your souls".
--
Machque
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past, Wisdom is of the
future."
"Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view and
demand that they respect yours." Chief Tecumseh
Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." Shawnee
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Vicarious sacrifices |
17 Feb 2006 02:48:27 PM |
|
|
Amangie Machque wrote:
joesterl wrote
: "It is the blood that makes atonement for the soul."
: - Leviticus 17:11
11 Ki-nefesh habasar badam hi va'ani netativ lachem al-hamizbe'ach lechaper
al-nafshoteichem ki-hadam hu banefesh yechaper
For [the] soul of the body is in the blood and I have given it to you [to be
placed] on the Altar to achieve atonement for your souls, for it is the
blood that will achieve atonement for the soul.
You for got about the portion of the verse that says, "I have given it to
you [to be placed] on the Altar to achieve atonement for your souls".
========
Where did Abel and Job and Noah offer their sacrifices before Mosaic
Law?
The Holocaust of 60+ years ago was given that name because Holocaust
referred to a sacrifice that was made regularly in the Temple 2,000
years ago.
When those people died 60+ years ago, upon what altar were they
sacrificed?
The Gettysburg address shows that battlefield was an altar upon which
lives were sacrificed.
- moshe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Vicarious sacrifices |
17 Feb 2006 04:05:25 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Amangie Machque wrote:
joesterl wrote
: "It is the blood that makes atonement for the soul."
: - Leviticus 17:11
11 Ki-nefesh habasar badam hi va'ani netativ lachem al-hamizbe'ach lechaper
al-nafshoteichem ki-hadam hu banefesh yechaper
For [the] soul of the body is in the blood and I have given it to you [to be
placed] on the Altar to achieve atonement for your souls, for it is the
blood that will achieve atonement for the soul.
You for got about the portion of the verse that says, "I have given it to
you [to be placed] on the Altar to achieve atonement for your souls".
========
Where did Abel and Job and Noah offer their sacrifices before Mosaic
Law?
The Holocaust of 60+ years ago was given that name because Holocaust
referred to a sacrifice that was made regularly in the Temple 2,000
years ago.
When those people died 60+ years ago, upon what altar were they
sacrificed?
The Gettysburg address shows that battlefield was an altar upon which
lives were sacrificed.
Hm, two small quibbles here. First, Holocaust is a Greek word (or
Greek neologism).
Second, Holocaust means "wholly burned." The sacrifices in the Temple
were not wholly burned. The sacrifices were eaten by the priests (not
as ashes, of course).
TCross
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Amangie Machque" |
|
| Title: Re: Vicarious sacrifices |
17 Feb 2006 04:24:00 PM |
|
|
joesterl wrote
: Where did Abel and Job and Noah offer their sacrifices before Mosaic
: Law?
The key phrase in that statement is: "before Mosaic Law". Completely
irrelevant to the Mosaic Law that you are attempting to base your argument
upon. "it is not the blood in the veins of the sacrifice, but the blood upon
the altar which is efficacious." (Scofield, C.I. "Scofield Reference Notes
on Leviticus 17". "Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition))
: The Holocaust of 60+ years ago was given that name because Holocaust
: referred to a sacrifice that was made regularly in the Temple 2,000
: years ago.
: When those people died 60+ years ago, upon what altar were they
: sacrificed?
Again, completely irrelevant when attempting to base your argument on the
Mosaic Law.
: The Gettysburg address shows that battlefield was an altar upon which
: lives were sacrificed.
Once again, completely irrelevant. Merely a metaphor.
--
Machque
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past, Wisdom is of the
future." Lumbee
"Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view and
demand that they respect yours." Chief Tecumseh
Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." Shawnee
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Vicarious sacrifices |
17 Feb 2006 05:48:28 PM |
|
|
Amangie Machque wrote:
joesterl wrote
: Where did Abel and Job and Noah offer their sacrifices before Mosaic
: Law?
The key phrase in that statement is: "before Mosaic Law". Completely
irrelevant to the Mosaic Law that you are attempting to base your argument
upon.
=========
As I have been saying here for 7 years, and as the New Testament says,
Jesus' sacrifice was not a Mosaic sacrifice, because if it was then it
would not have been any better than a Mosaic sacrifice.
Hebrews chapters 8-10, for example, state that Jesus' sacrifice is
*better* than Mosaic sacrifice, and by definition *better* must be
*different*.
Mosaic Law was a "shadow", showing a *principle*.
=========
"it is not the blood in the veins of the sacrifice, but the blood upon
the altar which is efficacious." (Scofield, C.I. "Scofield Reference Notes
on Leviticus 17". "Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition))
: The Holocaust of 60+ years ago was given that name because Holocaust
: referred to a sacrifice that was made regularly in the Temple 2,000
: years ago.
: When those people died 60+ years ago, upon what altar were they
: sacrificed?
Again, completely irrelevant when attempting to base your argument on the
Mosaic Law.
=========
My argument was not based on Mosaic Law.
I was challenging the other person's claim that vicarious sacrifice is
foreign to Mosaic Law.
The truth is that vicarious sacrifice is the very essence of Mosaic
Law, with the innocent animal being a substitute for the sinful person.
=========
: The Gettysburg address shows that battlefield was an altar upon which
: lives were sacrificed.
Once again, completely irrelevant. Merely a metaphor.
=========
I cited it as an expression of a *principle*.
- moshe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amangie Machque" |
|
| Title: Re: Vicarious sacrifices |
17 Feb 2006 06:20:38 PM |
|
|
joesterl wrote
: As I have been saying here for 7 years, and as the New Testament says,
: Jesus' sacrifice was not a Mosaic sacrifice, because if it was then it
: would not have been any better than a Mosaic sacrifice.
Then don't try to base your argument on Vayikra 17:11. It's as simple as
that.
--
Machque
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past, Wisdom is of the
future." Lumbee
"Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view and
demand that they respect yours." Chief Tecumseh
Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." Shawnee
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Vicarious sacrifices |
17 Feb 2006 07:02:31 PM |
|
|
Amangie Machque wrote:
joesterl wrote
: As I have been saying here for 7 years, and as the New Testament says,
: Jesus' sacrifice was not a Mosaic sacrifice, because if it was then it
: would not have been any better than a Mosaic sacrifice.
Then don't try to base your argument on Vayikra 17:11. It's as simple as
that.
======
Please put your brain into gear and think before you post.
"Ha Satan" claimed that "`korbanot` have nothing to do with "vicarious
sacrifice"".
So I cited what Judaism's sages said about Leviticus 17:11 to show that
vicarious sacrifice was the very essence of Mosaic Law.
My post said nothing about Jesus and the New Testament.
My post was about vicarious sacrifice in Mosaic Law. Period.
I only mentioned Jesus and the New Testament *later* when it appeared
that you were trying to show how Jesus could not have been a vicarious
sacrifice, which was a change of subject from what my post had been
about.
BTW, according to your reasoning, it was wrong for the rabbis to claim
that Genesis 1:28 was one of the 613 commandments of Mosaic Law.
In fact, it was wrong for the rabbis to make any reference at all to
any Scripture that appears before the book of Exodus since that
preceded Mosaic Law and therefore would have no relevant information
that would illustrate the principles of Mosaic Law which came later.
It's as simple as that.
- moshe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amangie Machque" |
|
| Title: Re: Vicarious sacrifices |
17 Feb 2006 07:04:40 PM |
|
|
joesterl wrote
: "Ha Satan" claimed that "`korbanot` have nothing to do with "vicarious
: sacrifice"".
And he is correct, according to the Tanach.
--
Machque
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past, Wisdom is of the
future." Lumbee
"Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view and
demand that they respect yours." Chief Tecumseh
Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." Shawnee
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Vicarious sacrifices |
17 Feb 2006 07:15:29 PM |
|
|
Amangie Machque wrote:
joesterl wrote
: "Ha Satan" claimed that "`korbanot` have nothing to do with "vicarious
: sacrifice"".
And he is correct, according to the Tanach.
========
Rashi - "The soul of every creature is bound up in its blood;
therefore I gave it to atone for the soul of man - that one soul
should come and atone for the other."
Aben Ezra - "One soul is a substitute for the other."
Moses ben Nachmann - "I gave the soul for you on the altar, that the
soul of the animal should be an atonement for the soul of the man."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amangie Machque" |
|
| Title: Re: Vicarious sacrifices |
17 Feb 2006 07:35:49 PM |
|
|
joesterl wrote
: Amangie Machque wrote:
: > joesterl wrote
: > : "Ha Satan" claimed that "`korbanot` have nothing to do with "vicarious
: > : sacrifice"".
: >
: > And he is correct, according to the Tanach.
:
: Rashi - "The soul of every creature is bound up in its blood;
: therefore I gave it to atone for the soul of man - that one soul
: should come and atone for the other."
:
: Aben Ezra - "One soul is a substitute for the other."
:
: Moses ben Nachmann - "I gave the soul for you on the altar, that the
: soul of the animal should be an atonement for the soul of the man."
Go to the source.
--
Machque
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past, Wisdom is of the
future." Lumbee
"Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view and
demand that they respect yours." Chief Tecumseh
Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." Shawnee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Vicarious sacrifices |
17 Feb 2006 08:05:19 PM |
|
|
Amangie Machque wrote:
joesterl wrote
: Amangie Machque wrote:
: > joesterl wrote
: > : "Ha Satan" claimed that "`korbanot` have nothing to do with "vicarious
: > : sacrifice"".
: >
: > And he is correct, according to the Tanach.
:
: Rashi - "The soul of every creature is bound up in its blood;
: therefore I gave it to atone for the soul of man - that one soul
: should come and atone for the other."
:
: Aben Ezra - "One soul is a substitute for the other."
:
: Moses ben Nachmann - "I gave the soul for you on the altar, that the
: soul of the animal should be an atonement for the soul of the man."
Go to the source.
--
Machque
And, of course, we should accept only Amangie Machque's interpretation
of the source. It's a small world after all.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amangie Machque" |
|
| Title: Re: Vicarious sacrifices |
17 Feb 2006 08:10:39 PM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" wrote
: And, of course, we should accept only Amangie Machque's interpretation
: of the source.
Never!!!
--
Machque
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past, Wisdom is of the
future." Lumbee
"Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view and
demand that they respect yours." Chief Tecumseh
Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." Shawnee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Vicarious sacrifices |
17 Feb 2006 08:17:40 PM |
|
|
Amangie Machque wrote:
"Terry Cross" wrote
: And, of course, we should accept only Amangie Machque's interpretation
: of the source.
Never!!!
Then we are truly lost. You have rejected the interpretations of
Moshe, Terry, Rashi Aben Ezra, Moses ben Nachmann - and now, the Mangy
Matchbox. Who is left?
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amangie Machque" |
|
| Title: Re: Vicarious sacrifices |
17 Feb 2006 08:36:47 PM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" wrote
: Then we are truly lost.
Don't blame me. You were lost long before you corresoponded with me. Xin
loi!
--
Machque
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past, Wisdom is of the
future." Lumbee
"Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view and
demand that they respect yours." Chief Tecumseh
Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." Shawnee
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: Vicarious sacrifices |
17 Feb 2006 11:12:45 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
Amangie Machque wrote:
"Terry Cross" wrote
: And, of course, we should accept only Amangie Machque's interpretation
: of the source.
Never!!!
Then we are truly lost. You have rejected the interpretations of
Moshe, Terry, Rashi Aben Ezra, Moses ben Nachmann - and now, the Mangy
Matchbox. Who is left?
TCross
You might wonder why the vast majority who encounter you here on usenet
think you are an idiot. This type of response [above] is a classic
example.
The poster is advising you to use your head and learn the source texts
and go with the outcome therein without external reinterpretations.
You on the other hand prefer to listen to anyone's opinions about the
source text but not the source text itself.
You might have learned to look into the erroneous presumptions of
Christianity by now [vicarious sacrifice, Messianic Saviour, holy
spirit, church, law of christ, etc] and we who were once `sola
scriptura` fundamentalists have given you a wealth of information which
should have helped you but apparently did not.
You are a moron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Vicarious sacrifices |
17 Feb 2006 11:56:24 PM |
|
|
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
Amangie Machque wrote:
"Terry Cross" wrote
: And, of course, we should accept only Amangie Machque's interpretation
: of the source.
Never!!!
Then we are truly lost. You have rejected the interpretations of
Moshe, Terry, Rashi Aben Ezra, Moses ben Nachmann - and now, the Mangy
Matchbox. Who is left?
TCross
You might wonder why the vast majority who encounter you here on usenet
think you are an idiot. This type of response [above] is a classic
example.
The poster is advising you to use your head and learn the source texts
and go with the outcome therein without external reinterpretations.
You on the other hand prefer to listen to anyone's opinions about the
source text but not the source text itself.
You might have learned to look into the erroneous presumptions of
Christianity by now [vicarious sacrifice, Messianic Saviour, holy
spirit, church, law of christ, etc] and we who were once `sola
scriptura` fundamentalists have given you a wealth of information which
should have helped you but apparently did not.
You are a moron.
And you have evidently been practicing: you have learned to use the
shift key. A grateful English-speaking readership is awed by your
sudden willingness to show this simple courtesy in your use of the
English language.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amangie Machque" |
|
| Title: Re: Vicarious sacrifices |
18 Feb 2006 12:03:31 AM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" wrote
: Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
: > Terry Cross wrote:
: > > Amangie Machque wrote:
: > > > "Terry Cross" wrote
: > > > : And, of course, we should accept only Amangie Machque's
interpretation
: > > > : of the source.
: > > >
: > > > Never!!!
: > >
: > > Then we are truly lost. You have rejected the interpretations of
: > > Moshe, Terry, Rashi Aben Ezra, Moses ben Nachmann - and now, the Mangy
: > > Matchbox. Who is left?
: > >
: > > TCross
: >
: >
: >
: > You might wonder why the vast majority who encounter you here on usenet
: > think you are an idiot. This type of response [above] is a classic
: > example.
: >
: > The poster is advising you to use your head and learn the source texts
: > and go with the outcome therein without external reinterpretations.
: >
: > You on the other hand prefer to listen to anyone's opinions about the
: > source text but not the source text itself.
: >
: > You might have learned to look into the erroneous presumptions of
: > Christianity by now [vicarious sacrifice, Messianic Saviour, holy
: > spirit, church, law of christ, etc] and we who were once `sola
: > scriptura` fundamentalists have given you a wealth of information which
: > should have helped you but apparently did not.
: >
: > You are a moron.
:
: And you have evidently been practicing: you have learned to use the
: shift key. A grateful English-speaking readership is awed by your
: sudden willingness to show this simple courtesy in your use of the
: English language.
:
: TCross
rire bébête
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: Vicarious sacrifices |
18 Feb 2006 12:22:01 AM |
|
|
Amangie Machque wrote:
"Terry Cross" wrote
: Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
: > Terry Cross wrote:
: > > Amangie Machque wrote:
: > > > "Terry Cross" wrote
: > > > : And, of course, we should accept only Amangie Machque's
interpretation
: > > > : of the source.
: > > >
: > > > Never!!!
: > >
: > > Then we are truly lost. You have rejected the interpretations of
: > > Moshe, Terry, Rashi Aben Ezra, Moses ben Nachmann - and now, the Mangy
: > > Matchbox. Who is left?
: > >
: > > TCross
: >
: >
: >
: > You might wonder why the vast majority who encounter you here on usenet
: > think you are an idiot. This type of response [above] is a classic
: > example.
: >
: > The poster is advising you to use your head and learn the source texts
: > and go with the outcome therein without external reinterpretations.
: >
: > You on the other hand prefer to listen to anyone's opinions about the
: > source text but not the source text itself.
: >
: > You might have learned to look into the erroneous presumptions of
: > Christianity by now [vicarious sacrifice, Messianic Saviour, holy
: > spirit, church, law of christ, etc] and we who were once `sola
: > scriptura` fundamentalists have given you a wealth of information which
: > should have helped you but apparently did not.
: >
: > You are a moron.
:
: And you have evidently been practicing: you have learned to use the
: shift key. A grateful English-speaking readership is awed by your
: sudden willingness to show this simple courtesy in your use of the
: English language.
:
: TCross
rire bebete
This was the French version of "Spitting Image" as i recall ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amangie Machque" |
|
| Title: Re: Vicarious sacrifices |
18 Feb 2006 12:27:39 AM |
|
|
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Amangie Machque wrote:
: > rire bebete
:
: This was the French version of "Spitting Image" as i recall ?
As far as I remember it means to giggle or chuckle.
--
Machque
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past, Wisdom is of the
future." Lumbee
"Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view and
demand that they respect yours." Chief Tecumseh
Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." Shawnee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: Vicarious bebetes |
18 Feb 2006 02:40:35 AM |
|
|
Amangie Machque wrote:
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Amangie Machque wrote:
: > rire bebete
:
: This was the French version of "Spitting Image" as i recall ?
As far as I remember it means to giggle or chuckle.
was referring to French and British television shows
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Vicarious sacrifices |
17 Feb 2006 04:55:46 PM |
|
|
Amangie Machque wrote:
joesterl wrote
: Where did Abel and Job and Noah offer their sacrifices before Mosaic
: Law?
The key phrase in that statement is: "before Mosaic Law". Completely
irrelevant to the Mosaic Law that you are attempting to base your argument
upon. "it is not the blood in the veins of the sacrifice, but the blood upon
the altar which is efficacious." (Scofield, C.I. "Scofield Reference Notes
on Leviticus 17". "Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition))
Scofield was no more a theologian than Joseph Smith. You could quote
anyone from the Rambam to Mary Baker Eddie and Madame Helena P.
Blavatsky with equal authority.
: The Holocaust of 60+ years ago was given that name because Holocaust
: referred to a sacrifice that was made regularly in the Temple 2,000
: years ago.
: When those people died 60+ years ago, upon what altar were they
: sacrificed?
Again, completely irrelevant when attempting to base your argument on the
Mosaic Law.
: The Gettysburg address shows that battlefield was an altar upon which
: lives were sacrificed.
Once again, completely irrelevant. Merely a metaphor.
Try Deut. 13:
16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public
square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a *whole
burnt offering* to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever,
never to be rebuilt.
Does that mean they dragged the ruins of the town into the Temple to be
burnt as an offering?
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amangie Machque" |
|
| Title: Re: Vicarious sacrifices |
17 Feb 2006 05:22:21 PM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" wrote
: Scofield was no more a theologian than Joseph Smith.
Neither is Morris, so what's the difference?
--
Machque
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past, Wisdom is of the
future." Lumbee
"Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view and
demand that they respect yours." Chief Tecumseh
Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." Shawnee
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Vicarious sacrifices |
17 Feb 2006 06:11:22 PM |
|
|
Amangie Machque wrote:
"Terry Cross" wrote
: Scofield was no more a theologian than Joseph Smith.
Neither is Morris, so what's the difference?
======
For followers of Judaism who claim that there is no vicarious sacrifice
in Mosaic Law, I quoted sages of Judaism who said that vicarious
sacrifice is the very essence of Mosaic Law, so I wish *idiots* here
would stop claiming that I am citing myself as the authority.
I cited sages of Judaism as the authorities since one would assume that
followers of Judaism would respect the statements of such sages:
Rashi - "The soul of every creature is bound up in its blood;
therefore I gave it to atone for the soul of man - that one soul
should come and atone for the other."
Aben Ezra - "One soul is a substitute for the other."
Moses ben Nachmann - "I gave the soul for you on the altar, that the
soul of the animal should be an atonement for the soul of the man."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amangie Machque" |
|
| Title: Re: Vicarious sacrifices |
17 Feb 2006 06:30:49 PM |
|
|
joesterl wrote
: Rashi - "The soul of every creature is bound up in its blood;
: therefore I gave it to atone for the soul of man - that one soul
: should come and atone for the other."
:
: Aben Ezra - "One soul is a substitute for the other."
But the Tanack (God's Word?) stipulates that is to be offered on the altar
of the tabernacle or temple.
: Moses ben Nachmann - "I gave the soul for you on the altar, that the
: soul of the animal should be an atonement for the soul of the man."
See, "on the altar"!
--
Machque
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past, Wisdom is of the
future." Lumbee
"Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view and
demand that they respect yours." Chief Tecumseh
Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." Shawnee
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Vicarious sacrifices |
17 Feb 2006 06:54:31 PM |
|
|
Amangie Machque wrote:
joesterl wrote
: Rashi - "The soul of every creature is bound up in its blood;
: therefore I gave it to atone for the soul of man - that one soul
: should come and atone for the other."
:
: Aben Ezra - "One soul is a substitute for the other."
But the Tanack (God's Word?) stipulates that is to be offered on the altar
of the tabernacle or temple.
==========
First, when I cited the words of those sages I was not talking about
Jesus and the New Testament.
I was challenging the claim made by "Ha Satan" that Mosaic sacrifices
were not vicarious sacrifices.
Second, the blood for atonement in Numbers 25:13 and Numbers 35:33 was
not offered on the altar in the Temple.
Third, Jesus' sacrifice was not a Mosaic sacrifice, as passages such as
Hebrews chapters 8-18 clearly explain.
==========
: Moses ben Nachmann - "I gave the soul for you on the altar, that the
: soul of the animal should be an atonement for the soul of the man."
See, "on the altar"!
==========
So what!!!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amangie Machque" |
|
| Title: Re: Vicarious sacrifices |
17 Feb 2006 07:03:24 PM |
|
|
joesterl wrote
: First, when I cited the words of those sages I was not talking about
: Jesus and the New Testament.
: I was challenging the claim made by "Ha Satan" that Mosaic sacrifices
: were not vicarious sacrifices.
A vicarious sacrifice is a vicarious sacrifice. The Mosaic sacrifices were
not vicarious sacrifices.
: Second, the blood for atonement in Numbers 25:13 and Numbers 35:33 was
: not offered on the altar in the Temple.
They were not sacrifices 'commanded' by God either.
: Third, Jesus' sacrifice was not a Mosaic sacrifice, as passages such as
: Hebrews chapters 8-18 clearly explain.
Then don't base any argument concerning it on Vayikra 17:11.
--
Machque
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past, Wisdom is of the
future." Lumbee
"Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view and
demand that they respect yours." Chief Tecumseh
Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." Shawnee
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
