Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Hebrew scriptures contain numerous examples of atonement by means other than blood sacrifice. The passage which the epistle to the Hebrews takes out of context actually has nothing to do with atonement! It is about dietary laws.
So I ask you once again, produce ONE verse that shows how the OT sacrificial system has been changed, or been done away with ? Rabbi's have tried, but to no avail.
Rabbis have tried and failed, huh? Yeah, right.
This is really not that difficult. God commanded that sacrifices be offered only at the place(s) He commanded. The last place so designated was the Temple in Jerusalem. In the absence of the Temple, there is no place for sacrifices to licitly be offered. It would be an act of disobedience for Jews to try to offer sacrifice at a place other than where God commanded they be done.
You think Jesus was the 'perfect sacrifice'? Sacrifices were supposed to be physically unblemished; Jesus had been scourged. Sacrifices were only allowed to be performed in the Temple. Jesus was crucified outside the gates of Jerusalem. Human sacrifice was forbidden by the Torah. Furthermore, no one can atone for the sins of another:
The person who sins, he alone shall die. A child shall not share
the burden of a parent’s guilt, nor shall a parent share the
burden of a child’s guilt; the righteousness of the righteous
shall be accounted to him alone, and the wickedness of the wicked
shall be accounted to him alone.
Moreover, if the wicked one repents of all the sins that he
committed and keeps all My laws and does what is just and right,
he shall not die. None of the transgressions he committed shall
be remembered against him; because of the righteousness he has
practiced, he shall live. Is it my desire that a wicked person
shall die?--says the Lord God. It is rather that he shall turn
back from his ways and live. (Ezekiel 18:20-23)
Explain to me how Jesus was of the line of David.
Hi! :)
The New Testament starts out by giving chronological order to Jesus' lineage--in Matthew 1:1, which says "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob.
Also [on a slightly different note], I consider the New Testament to be basically a continuation of Jewish books [with the obvious exception, of course]. For example, in addition to Matthew 1:1---Mark 12:26 also shows the common bond we have with our patriarchs; "Have ye not read the book of Moses, how in the Bush, G-d spake unto him saying, I am the G-d of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob?" [which concurs with Exodus 3:6]
Likewise in Luke 3:33-34 it says "Juda, which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nahor."
There are also quotes in Acts [3:13 and 7:8] and in Romans [9: 7-13] which again state the patriarchs.
We also share many of the same commandments--compare Deuteronomy IV:4-9 to Mark 12:23-30. Both are identical in language and meaning in regard to the commandment that says to love G-d almighty [Jesus was definately referring to the G-d of Abraham].
Then there is the quote you used earlier, Leviticus 19: 17-18 and 33-34, and Mark 12:31, which both state to love your neighbor as yourself.
And nowhere in our common belief is there a call for a total annihilation of the enemies of G-d. On the contrary, we seek repentance from and mercy for those on the wrong path. We do not believe that G-d delights in seeing the destruction of those created in His image, but the same cannot be said for the Islamic tradition that calls for the annhilation of Jews and Christians.
One final thought on those people of faith[???] who would turn their backs on the Jews and Israel--Zechariah 8:23 where it says "Thus saith the L-rd of Hosts: In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold, out of all the languages and nations, shall even take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying: We will go with you, for we heard that G-d is with you.
The passage which the epistle to the Hebrews takes out of context actually has nothing to do with atonement! It is about dietary laws.
I wasn't using the NT, I was quoting from Exodus 30.
Rabbis have tried and failed, huh? Yeah, right.
If they have, then perhaps they've contradicted God (Exo 30:10 & Lev 16:34)
This is really not that difficult. God commanded that sacrifices be offered only at the place(s) He commanded. The last place so designated was the Temple in Jerusalem. In the absence of the Temple, there is no place for sacrifices to licitly be offered. It would be an act of disobedience for Jews to try to offer sacrifice at a place other than where God commanded they be done.
Agreed, but I think it's a impossible burden for your faith to atone for your sins.
You think Jesus was the 'perfect sacrifice'? Sacrifices were supposed to be physically unblemished; Jesus had been scourged. Sacrifices were only allowed to be performed in the Temple. Jesus was crucified outside the gates of Jerusalem. Human sacrifice was forbidden by the Torah. Furthermore, no one can atone for the sins of another:
Isaiah 53, strongly disagrees with you.
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Isa 53:7 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.
Isa 53:10 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.