Is Jesus who He said He is?

[TheProcess]

for your convenience it is found at the Chabad.org website under the heading Judaism 101. They offer the entire Judaica Press Tanach along with RASHI's commentary.

Let me quote from the commentary:

15. He shall then slaughter the he goat of the people's sin offering and bring its blood within the dividing curtain, and he shall do with its blood as he had done with the bull's blood, and he shall sprinkle it upon the ark cover and before the ark cover.

the people's [sin-offering he-goat] For what the bull atones for the kohanim [namely, defilements of the Sanctuary and its holy things], the he-goat atones for the Israelites, and this goat was the one upon which the lot "For the Lord" had fallen. - [Yoma 61a]

as he had done with the bull's blood [namely, sprinkling it] once above and seven times below. -- [Torath Kohanim 16:41; Yoma 55a]

16. And he shall effect atonement upon the Holy from the defilements of the children of Israel and from their rebellions and all their unintentional sins. He shall do likewise to the Tent of Meeting, which dwells with them amidst their defilements.

from the defilements of the children of Israel- [i.e., atoning] for those who, while in [a state of] uncleanness, had entered the Sanctuary, and it never became known to them [that they had been unclean], for it says: ??????????????, ???????? denotes an unintentional sin. ? [Torath Kohanim 16:42; Shev. 17b]

and from their rebellions [i.e., atoning] also [for] those who, in a state of uncleanness, willfully entered [the Sanctuary, thereby defiling it]. ? [Torath Kohanim 16:42; Shev. 17b]

He shall do likewise to the Tent of Meeting i.e., just as he had sprinkled from [the blood of] both [the bull and the he-goat] inside [the Holy of Holies, with] one sprinkling above and seven below, so shall he sprinkle from [the blood of] both [the bull and the he-goat] on the dividing curtain from the outside once above and seven times below. ? [Torath Kohanim 16:43; Yoma 56b]

which dwells with them, [even] amidst their defilements Although they are unclean, the Divine Presence is among them. ? [Torath Kohanim 16:43; Yoma 56b]

http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=63255

The copy/paste didn't work perfectly. But anyway, this commentary supports what I said -- The goat that was killed was being used to atone for sin ONLY connected to Temple impurities.

[Guest shiloh357]

Okay, first of all The Process, You have already been asked by another poster to consolidate your responses into one post. Other people want to join the debate but are concerned that their posts will simply get burried by you when you make 6, 7 or 8 responses, and they will not be able to have a voice in the debate. I am now asking you to comply with that request, and if you fail to do so, I will see that a moderator brings you into compliance.

Now, on to your responses:

Having said that, there is no way I can show that they apply to Jesus without the New Testament."

And you can't show that they were ever intended to point to anyone can you? You can't demonstrate that they, "show what form the Messiah's ministry would take" can you?

As I predicted, you have no way of providing solid evidence to support the New Testament's non-literal use of the Old Testament. The Christian use of Jewish scripture looks like an abuse pure and simple, and you can't provide solid evidence to show different.

No, what I said was that I cannot provide a text from the OT that says, "these sacrifices prove that a man named Jesus will one day be the Messiah." What you need to understand is that the Bible is book of progressive revelation. It builds on itself, and more light is given in the prophets, than was available before that time. The coming of the Messiah is theme althroughout the Bible and one of the chief illustrations of the Messiah as sacrifice comes from the 53rd chapter of Isaiah

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

(Isaiah 53:6-10)

In fact, the blessings over Judah and Joseph are seen as Messianic texts in Rabbinic literature; one was the picture of a suffering Messiah (Messiah ben Joseph) and the warrior king Messiah (Messiah ben David). It is believed by many to be the very issue raised by John the Baptist when he sent his disciples to ask Jesus if He was the one, or if there was another. John was asking about the two-Messiah tradition. The idea of a suffering Messiah was not at all foreign to ancient Israel.

There was enough in their writings and in their observances to allow them recognize the Messiah when he came and many did, and many did not. Some recognized Him and turned away from Him anyway. That pretty much puts the notion to bed that if Jesus would just appear in the sky or something that it would end all disbelief, which only underscores a misunderstanding concerning the root of unbelief.

So you can't provide evidence from the Old Testament? Strange that.

You say, "if the blood of just any person would have been good enough, then there would have been no reason to orchestrate the plan of redemption as we have it laid out in Scripture". Well perhaps there actually was no reason to orchestrate such a plan? Perhaps the New Testament isn't real scripture?

The evidence is found in that God did not use a sinful person to die for the world. The plan was already orchestrated before the foundations of the world according to the Bible. It was already decided how mankind would be redeemed, even before He was created.

One of the translations says, "he shall take two he goats as a sin offering". I know this. I quoted it. I quoted a couple of translations, one of which said "sin offering" and one said "sin offerings". I noticed the difference, and it was put forward as a possibility.

What second translation are you referring to? You only cited one translation, yet claim you are quoting from two. Secondly, the Hebrew simply does not support the rendering of "sin offerings."

Well we have one of the goats that is referred to as a "sin offering" in three different verses. But the scapegoat doesn't get referred to as a sin offering at all. Perhaps only one of the goats was a sin offering?

QUOTE(shiloh357 @ Nov 24 2006, 08:39 PM)

The sin offering on Yom Kippur has always been understood to consist of both Goats, not just one.

OK, if you have evidence that Jews have always understood both goats to be 1 sin offering then I will accept it. If you have good evidence, then I will concede the point.

1. The plain sense of the text does not allow for the two goats to be seen as independent of each other. You have skirt around the obvious to support an alternate understanding than what the plain meaning of the text tells us.

2. I am in the process of collecting that evidence, in the meantime, here is an excerpt from the prayers of Yom Kippur that date back to at least the 1st century and possibly even earlier:

Our righteous Messiah has departed from us,

We are horror-stricken, and have none to justify us.

Our iniquities and the yoke of our transgressions

He carries who is wounded because of our transgressions

He bears on His shoulder the burden of our sins.

To find pardon for all our iniquities.

By His stripes we shall be healed -

O Eternal One, it is time that thou should create Him anew!

But I don't accept the stuff about Jesus: this is not a reasonable argument to use.

Which is presisely why I am not gonig to waste time typing up long, arduous posts to provide you with "evidence" that you will simply brush aside without any serious consideration.

You can say this, but I doubt you even have Biblical support for it. Where does it say in the Bible that, "The sins had already been borne away"?

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

(Hebrews 9:28)

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

(1 Peter 2:24)

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

(1 Peter 3:18)

And he is the propitiation (atonement) for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)

According to someone I asked on a Jewish forum:

QUOTE

He is mistaking English for Hebrew.

lechol-chatotam -- all of their mistakes (inadvertent boo-boos).... And once again this speaks of COMMUNAL sins not individual sins. And it has to do with said sins happening inside the sanctuary and tent of meeting -- not in general.

Not hardly. The root for sin is chet does not mean, "boo-boo." Chet is not a "mistake." A mistake is something like locking your keys in the car, or forgetting to pick up the drycleaning.

Chet is offense against God which can range from ritual impurity, to sins committed with a high hand such as murder or adultery. The word Torah comes from the root yarah which means, "to throw." Torah carries the picture of a man hitting a target with the spear. It literally means to hit the mark. Chet is the opposite. It means to miss the mark.

It goes without saying that we are not dealing with individual sins, but rather the sin offering is for the nation of Israel as a whole. It includes the sins connected with the sancturary, but is not limited to them. To say this was only pertaining to the ritualistic imperfection simply does not agree with the text.

The copy/paste didn't work perfectly. But anyway, this commentary supports what I said -- The goat that was killed was being used to atone for sin ONLY connected to Temple impurities.

The commentary may support what you said, but not the text of the Scriptures, and the plain sense of the text. Not all of Israel entered the Tabernacle. It was the uncleanness of the nation in their rebelliousness against God, their continued national transgressions which were numerous. Again, while the sin offering on Yom definiately covered the pollution of the Tabernacle, it was also a sin offering for the nation and ALL their sins.

[TheProcess]

I am now asking you to comply with that request, and if you fail to do so, I will see that a moderator brings you into compliance.

If a mod tells me in this thread that forum rules are being broken then fair enough.

[billie]

I'm just wondering if anything in the NT can be proven to have been written before the canonizing of the bible? Are there any surviving original texts to prove that they weren't written after 325?

Yes..........

[undone]

Why am I so confident? Because I think shiloh357 has made the same mistake as "undone" -- using a non-literal reading of scripture which can't be supported with substantial evidence.

To the other readers of this thread....

I am not conceding any mistake. I am simply not engaging in any further debate "TheProcess" because I believe it's casting pearls. I felt it was time to "wipe my feet." I have been very encouraged by Shiloh's and other people's work here. "TheProcess" isn't revealing anything that hasn't been successfully refuted for the past 2000 years. It was a topic in many of the apostle's letters.

I have to admit it's a bit weird at times to be engaged with so much anti-christian rhetoric.

[Guest shiloh357]

I'm just wondering if anything in the NT can be proven to have been written before the canonizing of the bible? Are there any surviving original texts to prove that they weren't written after 325?

There are over 25,000 Greek NT documents some dating to at least 125 A.D., and possibly earlier.

[TheProcess]

Because if you had read post #140, I told you that the flour provided "atonement" regarding civil matters, but was never prescribed for Atonement where spiritual matters were concerned. It was not an expiatory offering that would have dealt with one's guilt before God. In regard to God's Justice, the guilt of sin, could only be atoned for by blood. The flour did not apply to that issue, therefore it is not inconsistent to say that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.

This issue doesn't seem that important in the context of the debate. For this to be a significant point -- that flour was only an option to atone for certain sins -- you would have to be correct about the Yom Kippur offerings I think. So I don't see any need to address this issue. I will simply focus on the Yom Kippur offerings.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Heathen,

Could you please direct me to a catalogue of those documents?

You seem to have no problem finding anti-christian literature to support your non-belief.

Seek and you will find, knock and the Door will be opened.

Mt

[TheProcess]

So you can't provide evidence from the Old Testament? Strange that.

You say, "if the blood of just any person would have been good enough, then there would have been no reason to orchestrate the plan of redemption as we have it laid out in Scripture". Well perhaps there actually was no reason to orchestrate such a plan? Perhaps the New Testament isn't real scripture?

The evidence is found in that God did not use a sinful person to die for the world. The plan was already orchestrated before the foundations of the world according to the Bible. It was already decided how mankind would be redeemed, even before He was created.

How does repeating the same fallacious argument get us anywhere?

I will also make the point that it seems strange that an omnipotent Deity would only be able to redeem mankind in a certain way. Shouldn't an omnipotent God be able to do so in very many ways? However he wants to do it?

One of the translations says, "he shall take two he goats as a sin offering". I know this. I quoted it. I quoted a couple of translations, one of which said "sin offering" and one said "sin offerings". I noticed the difference, and it was put forward as a possibility.

What second translation are you referring to? You only cited one translation, yet claim you are quoting from two. Secondly, the Hebrew simply does not support the rendering of "sin offerings."

I am not interested in pursuing that "possibility". I accept that it says, "sin offering". I can find the translation used if you really care about it.

[TheProcess]

2. I am in the process of collecting that evidence, in the meantime, here is an excerpt from the prayers of Yom Kippur that date back to at least the 1st century and possibly even earlier:

Our righteous Messiah has departed from us,

We are horror-stricken, and have none to justify us.

Our iniquities and the yoke of our transgressions

He carries who is wounded because of our transgressions

He bears on His shoulder the burden of our sins.

To find pardon for all our iniquities.

By His stripes we shall be healed -

O Eternal One, it is time that thou should create Him anew!

Could you provide a reference to the Jewish source in question? And support that this is going back to (at least) the 1st century?