Bible Options Bible Study Software
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Apostle Paul is a Jew
And finally Benyosef,

Next, we are given a mention of fire from the altar being placed in a censure for atonement of sins. A pertinent passage is found in Numbers 16:46-48:

"Take your censer and put incense in it, along with fire from the altar, and hurry to the assembly to make atonement for them. Wrath has come out from the Lord; the plague has started.' So Aaron did as Moses said, and ran into the midst of the assembly. The plague had already started among the people, but Aaron offered the incense and made atonement for them. He stood between the living and the dead, and the plague stopped."

The context for this passage in chapter 16 is the rebellion of Korah who was "swallowed whole by the earth" (16:31-32) and all of the men that were part of the rebellion were subsequently consumed by fire (16:35). Later in the chapter, we are told that the congregation arose against Moses and Aaron because of the people that were killed (16:41). For this, God caused a plague, as is detailed in verses 46-48 above, to fall upon the people. Once again, similar to the case discussed above with the money, we see that the fire in the censure is to quench the plague that has befallen the Israelites. The only difference is that the money was used to prevent a plague in the former case whereas the fire in the censure was used to stop a plague that had already started. As in the previous case, it had nothing to do with atonement for sins.

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/antianti.html
(12-04-2013, 09:43 AM)Tanachreader Wrote: "The answer is really quite simple, as the verses themselves indicate: 'If, however, he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring as an offering for his sin a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering. He must not put oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. He is to bring it to the priest, WHO SHALL TAKE A HANDFUL OF IT AS A MEMORIAL PORTION AND BURN IT ON THE ALTAR ON TOP OF THE OFFERINGS MADE TO THE LORD BY FIRE. It is a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for him for any of these sins he has committed, and he will be forgiven. The rest of the offering will belong to the priest, as in the case of the grain offering.' (Leviticus 5:11-13, emphasis added) "According to verse 12, the priest will 'take a handful of it [i.e., the flour] as a memorial portion and burn it ON THE ALTAR ON TOP OF THE OFFRINGS made to the Lord by fire.' Then, 'the priest will make atonement for him' (v. 13). In other words, the priest, in his capacity as mediator for the people, and having mingled the flour with the blood sacrifices that were already on the altar, would make atonement for his fellow Israelite.

...continued
Lev 5:11 is specific in that the flour offering is an atonement in and of itself. There is no indication in any of these verses that blood is the reason for accepting the flour offering. It runs contradictory to the verses indicating an option if someone cannot afford the turtledoves or other burnt offerings.
(12-04-2013, 09:32 PM)Nachshon Wrote:
(12-04-2013, 09:43 AM)Tanachreader Wrote: "The answer is really quite simple, as the verses themselves indicate: 'If, however, he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring as an offering for his sin a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering. He must not put oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. He is to bring it to the priest, WHO SHALL TAKE A HANDFUL OF IT AS A MEMORIAL PORTION AND BURN IT ON THE ALTAR ON TOP OF THE OFFERINGS MADE TO THE LORD BY FIRE. It is a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for him for any of these sins he has committed, and he will be forgiven. The rest of the offering will belong to the priest, as in the case of the grain offering.' (Leviticus 5:11-13, emphasis added) "According to verse 12, the priest will 'take a handful of it [i.e., the flour] as a memorial portion and burn it ON THE ALTAR ON TOP OF THE OFFRINGS made to the Lord by fire.' Then, 'the priest will make atonement for him' (v. 13). In other words, the priest, in his capacity as mediator for the people, and having mingled the flour with the blood sacrifices that were already on the altar, would make atonement for his fellow Israelite.

...continued
Lev 5:11 is specific in that the flour offering is an atonement in and of itself. There is no indication in any of these verses that blood is the reason for accepting the flour offering. It runs contradictory to the verses indicating an option if someone cannot afford the turtledoves or other burnt offerings.

http://realmessiah.com/read/what-anti-mi...t-tell-you
Tanachreader Wrote:[The bull does not represent Israel] because the alter was the 12 tribes(stones)

And so? The Jews were cut down throughout history. Perfect symbolism.

Tanachreader Wrote:In 53:6 the prophet declares that all Israel has gone astray, i.e., they have gone off into sin. In verse 8 he affirms that the servant "was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my [Isaiah's people, the Hebrews] people to whom the stroke was due." Since, therefore, the servant suffers for the guilt of the nation, he cannot be the nation.

Why do you think Isaiah is the speaker in Isa 53? Obviously he was relating prophecy, but is he the one who is speaking in the narrative? Context tells us no:
“So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider. Who hath believed our report?...” (Isa 52:15-53:1)
We see it is the kings who are speaking in astonishment over the Servant’s (i.e. Israel’s) elevated status.

It’s interesting: is there any other source in the Torah that the kings will be shocked when the Messiah is exalted? No. How about when Israel is exalted? Yes:
“The nations shall see and be confounded at all their might: they shall lay their hand upon their mouth, their ears shall be deaf.” (Micah 7:16)

It is the kings of the nations who will realize that the Jews suffered not because of the Jews’ sins, but because of the nations’ sins (“from the transgressions of my people were they stricken”).

Tanachreader Wrote:The servant submits to the suffering heaped upon him submissively offering NO resistance…This servant suffers VOLUNTARILY but the nation has never thus suffered…Nowhere in the pages of Jewish history can it be shown that the nation or a remnant of the nation has voluntarily suffered in behalf of others. Therefore from this consideration it is clear that the nation is not the subject of the prophecy.

Did Jesus really “volunteer” his life? Mt 26:39 says no. By contrast, the Jews are not known for openly resisting persecution, choosing instead to flee the country or even offer their lives rather than convert to Christianity and other faiths (i.e. Spanish Inquisition).

Is there a clear verse that the Messiah will offer his life willingly? No. Is there a verse that Israel are considered “sheep for the slaughter?” Yes:
“You have given us like sheep appointed for meat; and have scattered us among the heathen…Yea, for Your sake are we killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter.” (Psalm 44:11, 22)
Tanachreader Wrote:The servant suffers UNTO DEATH...

Isaiah says the Servant suffers multiple “deaths” in verse 8, so it cannot be Jesus, who only died once, but can be Israel, millions of whom have suffered death.

Tanachreader Wrote:Just think about what Yeshua went through…

When he died, all the Roman did was pierce his side. You said his bones were broken, but according to the 4th gospel, his bones could not be broken. Which is it?

Tanachreader Wrote:You and Nashon don't understand the blood atonement...

There is no verse which requires blood as part of the atonement process. When Biblical figures sinned, not one of them brought animal sacrifices to atone for it. In fact, Torah tells us to not focus so much on blood:
“This is what the L-RD Almighty, the G-D of Israel, says: Go ahead, add your burnt offerings to your other sacrifices and eat the meat yourselves! For when I brought your ancestors out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, but I gave them this command: Obey Me, and I will be your G-D and you will be My people. Walk in obedience to all I command you, that it may go well with you.” (Jeremiah 7:21-23)

Tanachreader Wrote:Brown responds…

I can understand Dr. Brown’s claim that the root word “kaphar” doesn’t always mean atonement, since it is also used as “cover” in Genesis 6:14, when G-D was telling Noach to cover the Ark with pitch. However, if it doesn’t mean “atonement,” why did he use it as “atonement” in Exodus 30:16 (which he quoted) and why would he use it as “atonement” in Leviticus 17:11?

As Nachshon pointed out, there is no indication that the flour had any contact with any blood. Dr. Brown merely invents this “criterion” to further his agenda of requiring blood to atone for sins. Additionally, his quip that “nowhere is it written that the flour will make an atonement” is refuted by the very verses he quoted: “he is to bring as an offering for his sin a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering. He must not put oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering...In this way the priest will make atonement for him for any of these sins he has committed, and he will be forgiven.”

So, if “kaphar” does not mean “atonement,” then how do we know the sin sacrifices offer any atonement at all? We know because Leviticus 4 adds a phrase after "kaphar"--וְנִסְלַח לו, and it will be forgiven him. It's not so much the atonement, but the forgiveness that's important. What Dr. Brown doesn’t want you to know is that this same clause--וְנִסְלַח לוֹ--is used in conjunction with the flour-offering in chapter 5, showing quite clearly that flour by itself achieves forgiveness.
Benyosef,
You wrote and I'm puzzled why?
When he died, all the Roman did was pierce his side. You said his bones were broken, but according to the 4th gospel, his bones could not be broken. Which is it?

Where did I write "all the Roman did was pierce his side" ?
AND where did I write "his bones were broken" ?

I did write:
Joh:19:1 wipped by roman soldiers
Joh:19:3 roman soldiers smote him with their hands.
MAT 27:28 And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe.
Joh 19:23 soldiers crucified Jesus.
Joh 19:34 A soldier with a spear Pierced his side.

And I DID NOT WRITE that His Bones were broken.
You said I suggested that he was cut into pieces and you used the word mangle. I only say he was marred.
Isa:52:14: As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:
(12-07-2013, 09:42 AM)Tanachreader Wrote:
(12-04-2013, 09:32 PM)Nachshon Wrote:
(12-04-2013, 09:43 AM)Tanachreader Wrote: "The answer is really quite simple, as the verses themselves indicate: 'If, however, he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring as an offering for his sin a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering. He must not put oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. He is to bring it to the priest, WHO SHALL TAKE A HANDFUL OF IT AS A MEMORIAL PORTION AND BURN IT ON THE ALTAR ON TOP OF THE OFFERINGS MADE TO THE LORD BY FIRE. It is a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for him for any of these sins he has committed, and he will be forgiven. The rest of the offering will belong to the priest, as in the case of the grain offering.' (Leviticus 5:11-13, emphasis added) "According to verse 12, the priest will 'take a handful of it [i.e., the flour] as a memorial portion and burn it ON THE ALTAR ON TOP OF THE OFFRINGS made to the Lord by fire.' Then, 'the priest will make atonement for him' (v. 13). In other words, the priest, in his capacity as mediator for the people, and having mingled the flour with the blood sacrifices that were already on the altar, would make atonement for his fellow Israelite.

...continued
Lev 5:11 is specific in that the flour offering is an atonement in and of itself. There is no indication in any of these verses that blood is the reason for accepting the flour offering. It runs contradictory to the verses indicating an option if someone cannot afford the turtledoves or other burnt offerings.

http://realmessiah.com/read/what-anti-mi...t-tell-you
Lev 5:11; Lev 21:6,21 shows that flour/bread is a separate offering to Hashem. Again, if one could not afford the animal sacrifices, flour offerings were an alternative.
Nachshon wrote:
Lev 5:11 is specific in that the flour offering is an atonement in and of itself. There is no indication in any of these verses that blood is the reason for accepting the flour offering. It runs contradictory to the verses indicating an option if someone cannot afford the turtledoves or other burnt offerings.
Lev 5:11; Lev 21:6,21 shows that flour/bread is a separate offering to Hashem. Again, if one could not afford the animal sacrifices, flour offerings were an alternative.


Of course, it is true that the flour offering is identified as a sin offering in Lev 5:13, but it is equally true that the flour, in and of itself, is never associated with atoning power, which is why it had to be joined with the blood offerings on the altar, the altar that Moses Maimonides rightly called “the altar of atonement” (mizbah kapparah). In fact, Rabbi Skobac’s whole point was that the Hebrew word ’ishshey meant “fires” rather than “offerings made by fire,” and we have seen that he was completely wrong on this point. Thus, the Hebrew text is quite clear: The flour was put on the blood offerings that were on the altar, and there is not the slightest indication in the Torah that flour offerings, in and of themselves, had any atoning power or could be offered up by themselves in order to procure atonement. As I wrote in Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 2, 113:

According to verse 12, the priest will “take a handful of it [i.e., the flour] as a memorial portion, and burn it on the altar on top of the offerings made to the Lord by fire.” Then (verse 13) “the priest will make atonement for him.” In other words, the priest, in his capacity as mediator for the people, and having mingled the flour with the blood sacrifices that were already upon the altar, would make atonement for his fellow Israelite.

Nowhere is it written that “the flour will make atonement” (!) or that “the life of a creature is in the flour.Dr. M Brown

http://realmessiah.com/read/what-anti-mi...t-tell-you
(12-20-2013, 02:31 PM)Tanachreader Wrote: Of course, it is true that the flour offering is identified as a sin offering in Lev 5:13, but it is equally true that the flour, in and of itself, is never associated with atoning power, which is why it had to be joined with the blood offerings on the altar, the altar that Moses Maimonides rightly called “the altar of atonement” (mizbah kapparah). In fact, Rabbi Skobac’s whole point was that the Hebrew word ’ishshey meant “fires” rather than “offerings made by fire,” and we have seen that he was completely wrong on this point. Thus, the Hebrew text is quite clear: The flour was put on the blood offerings that were on the altar, and there is not the slightest indication in the Torah that flour offerings, in and of themselves, had any atoning power or could be offered up by themselves in order to procure atonement. As I wrote in Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 2, 113:

According to verse 12, the priest will “take a handful of it [i.e., the flour] as a memorial portion, and burn it on the altar on top of the offerings made to the Lord by fire.” Then (verse 13) “the priest will make atonement for him.” In other words, the priest, in his capacity as mediator for the people, and having mingled the flour with the blood sacrifices that were already upon the altar, would make atonement for his fellow Israelite.

Nowhere is it written that “the flour will make atonement” (!) or that “the life of a creature is in the flour.Dr. M Brown

http://realmessiah.com/read/what-anti-mi...t-tell-you
Lev 21:6,21 shows conclusively that bread is an offering of fire, without the need for blood. This is how Lev 5:12 is to be understood.
Tanachreader,

You accuse me of misinterpreting what you said by saying, “You said I suggested that he was cut into pieces and you used the word mangle. I only say he was marred.” In fact, you did say he was cut into pieces:
(12-02-2013, 12:39 PM)Tanachreader Wrote: Jesus is cut to pieces by the Romans
It is from this that I thought you were saying his bones were broken. In any event, he was never cut to pieces, so there is actually no connection between Elijah on Mt. Carmel and Jesus on the cross.

Additionally, I did not quote you as saying “all the Roman did was pierce his side.” What I said was that after Jesus died, the only thing the Romans did to him was pierce his side, and to this you agree, based on your most recent post, which reads, “I did write:…Joh 19:34 A soldier with a spear Pierced his side.”

What about Isaiah 53 tells you it is speaking of Jesus? You quote, “Isa:52:14: As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men,” but even this line does not match what is spoken of about Jesus. The gospels record how he had throngs of followers wherever he went (Mt 4:24, 13:2, Jn 6:2), and, if it’s worth anything, is he ever portrayed in paintings as ugly? It seems that his visage was not marred more than other men, and so was not the Servant described in Isaiah 53.

Can you please explain how Ezekiel’s prophecy was conditional and cannot happen now?


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)