Is Jesus who He said He is?

[ayin jade]

In my own understanding, the answer is this:

under Old Testament law, and, indeed, since the beginning of creation, sin cannot be forgiven with blood being shed.

Under the New Testament Covenant, that requirement has been met by Jesus, who, as the sinless Son of God, allowed His blood to be shed for the FORGIVENESS OF SINS.

Do you understand this?

I think you have made a mistake here: "sin cannot be forgiven with blood being shed". Did you want to say "without"? Your position doesn't seem to be recognized in Judaism. Jews say that blood sacrifice is one way to atone for sin in the Old Testament. But it wasn't the only way to atone for sin, and it never atoned for all sins.

Leviticus 17

11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood. And I have given it to you on the altar to make an atonement for your souls. For it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

The issue is whether Hebrews 9:22 is an accurate representation of Old Testament law.

Yes, it is as contained in every Covenant God has made.

There is a Law of first mention in the Bible.

The first mention we have of a sacrifice and the shedding of Blood for the remissions of sin. Is right after the fall of man.

Ge

[ayin jade]

Oh Amen Dave!

[ted]

Great job, Dave.

After reading that, there should not be any doubt as to how it all ties together. The only question now is whether or not to trust in it.

Call me a thumper, but I believe every word!

The issue is whether Hebrews 9:22 is an accurate representation of Old Testament law.

The real issue is wether or not you accept Jesus as the Atonement for your sins, and whether or not you can put aside your arguments long enough to do that.

t.

[TheProcess]

Leviticus 17

11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood. And I have given it to you on the altar to make an atonement for your souls. For it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.

If you want to bring up this verse, how about you respond to what I have already said?

[TheProcess]

The first mention we have of a sacrifice and the shedding of Blood for the remissions of sin. Is right after the fall of man.

Ge

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Process,

The real issue is whether or not you receive what has been revealed to you.

I have the feeling that you aren't here to receive anything, rather to ceaselessly debate.

But anyway, this isn't even relevant. We aren't talking about whether Jews have a problem because there is no Temple.

It is relevant though because we are talking about your point of view and your sin for which you have no atonement. That is unless you want to claim perfection.

You are the one trying desperatley to use the Old Testament to redefine the New.

Yet you say things like this;

Jews don't think that they are bound by laws when it is impossible to keep them.

"I can't drive 55," am I bound by the Law?

Whether the Temple exists or not is relevant because it points up the fact that we can't meet the expectations or Righteousness of the Law. Simply because we are out of Covenant. It does not however negate the Law.

Jesus Christ came to fulfill the Law. Not negate it.

Yet you just have negated it by your own comments.

Are you then God?

Who determined Jews aren't bound by the Law simply because the Temple doesn't exist?

I kinda thought your answer would be denial. It has been since you arrived.

Shall we carry on beating a dead horse?

Peace,

Dave

[TheProcess]

It is relevant though because we are talking about your point of view and your sin for which you have no atonement. That is unless you want to claim perfection.

It is not relevant to the issue of whether Hebrews 9:22 is accurate.

You are the one trying desperatley to use the Old Testament to redefine the New.

I am not trying to redefine anything. What I am doing, is suggesting that Hebrews 9:22 is a false representation of Old Testament religion. Hebrews 9:22 claims that "shedding of blood" is required to atone for sin. I have given verses which I believe show that this isn't the case.

Whether the Temple exists or not is relevant because it points up the fact that we can't meet the expectations or Righteousness of the Law.

This isn't relevant to the issue of whether Hebrews 9:22 is accurate. Please keep to the issue. I think you are proving my point that Christians do not always give straight answers!

Who determined Jews aren't bound by the Law simply because the Temple doesn't exist?

Lets keep it focused on whether Hebrews 9:22 is accurate.

[TheProcess]

I have the feeling that you aren't here to receive anything, rather to ceaselessly debate.

I have the feeling that perhaps you aren't interested in honestly looking at whether your religion is consistent with what you acknowledge as previous revelation. (The Old Testament.)

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

I closed this.

Beating a dead horse.

Peace,

Dave