Jews Discover Errors in the Christian Bible: The Old Testament Does Not Teach that Only a Blood Sacrifice Atones for Sin.

Image result for image of sacrificial lamb on the altar

Copied from:  Jews for Judaism

[Regarding] atonement of sin, the New Testament incorrectly quotes Psalms to make it appear that the body of the messiah (offered on the cross) is more desired than sacrifices. “Sacrifices and offering thou hast not desired, but a body Thou hast prepared for Me.” [Hebrews 10:5] In truth, the correct translation of this passage is, “Sacrifices and meal offerings Thou hast not desired; My ears Thou hast opened.” [Psalms 40:6]

Another verse from the Jewish bible confirms the Jewish understanding of Psalm 40:6 by stating that God wants obedience more than sacrifices. “…Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice…” [1 Samuel 15:22] Additionally, sin offerings were meant for unintentional sins only (see Leviticus 4) and served to motivate repentance. In the Jewish bible, the animal blood sacrifice[8] was not the main ingredient in removing sin. Even a perfect sacrifice not accompanied with sincere repentance could never achieve atonement for the individual.

The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, but the prayer of the upright is His delight.” [Proverbs 15:8]

How do we attain atonement for sins, today, when we no longer offer sacrifices in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem? The Jewish prophet Hosea (Chapter 14) taught us that when there is no Temple, our prayers replace sacrifices as the act to arouse our authentic feelings of remorse and repentance. “Offer your lips (of prayer) in place of the bulls (of sacrifices).” [Hosea 14:2] Although the context substantiates the correct understanding, Christian translations avoid the association of sacrifices and prayers. Instead, they often delete the reference to the sacrificial bulls by mistranslating the verse as “Offer the fruit of our lips”, as found in the Christian King James Bible and New American Standard editions.

Another passage that clearly instructs the Jews to replace sacrifices with prayer is found in the Old Testament, book of Kings, chapter 8. “When Your people go out to battle against their enemy, by whatever way You shall send them, and they pray to the Lord toward the city which You have chosen and the house which I have built for Your name, then hear in heaven their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause.” [1 Kings 8:44-45]

Some Christians attempt to validate their claim for the essential need of blood sacrifices by claiming that the Old Testament, Leviticus 17:11 states, There is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood.” But this statement does not appear anywhere in Jewish Scriptures! In fact, Leviticus 17:11 reads, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.

Although this verse states that blood serves as a tool to attain atonement for sin, it does not say that blood is only way to achieve this. In truth, the Jewish bible contains several examples of achieving atonement through various means without blood, such as “Aaron offered the incense and made atonement for them.” [Numbers 16:47]

The closest reference to Christianity’s fabricated version of the Leviticus 17:11 passage concerning blood and atonement actually appears in the New Testament. Amazingly, this passage actually substantiates the Jewish understanding and significantly contradicts the Christian argument. How so? Because it states that a person can almost claim that blood makes atonement. “And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness…” [Hebrews 9:22]

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Jews Discover Errors in the Christian Bible: The Old Testament Does Not Teach that Only a Blood Sacrifice Atones for Sin.

  1. re: ““And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness…” [Hebrews 9:22]”

    This is, of course, the closest, most accurate translation. And, Paul was correct — One may ALMOST say all things are cleansed with blood… Paul understood the Law quite well, and he speaks correctly here.

    I’ve long felt the whole idea of Jesus’ “sacrificial death” is misunderstood. Jesus’ death might be “likened” to a sacrifice, but, only in the same sense that we say “these soldiers sacrificed their lives for their country”. That’s not a sacrifice in any kind of “religious” sense. Nor do I believe Jesus’ death was actually a “sacrifice” at all. It was, but only in a manner of speaking. Thing is, I don’t believe that Paul (for example) was ever trying to teach that Jesus should literally be understood as a “sacrificial lamb”. it’s western thought – Greco/Roman thought – that screwed up the whole concept.

    But, i won’t ramble on here… this could get lenghty…

    Like

      1. The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Hebrew. Matthew pulled passages from a Greek translation instead of the original Hebrew. It is amazing to me that modern Gentile Christians believe they understand the Jewish holy book better than Jews.

        Like

        1. It’s not just Matt, the LXX was the Bible for the early church and most Jews of that era,that’s why they made the lXX because Greek was becoming the major language of Palestinian Jews.

          Like

          1. Here is a rabbi’s explanation for why Jews believe that the Masoretic text is better than the Septuagint:

            The term Septuagint, as it colloquially used, is a misnomer.

            The word derives from the Latin word for “Seventy” because of the account related in the Talmud (Mëgilla 40a) of a translation performed by seventy great scholars at the behest of “Talmi” (probably Ptolemaios III Euergetes, Macedonian ruler of Egypt). This translation was of the Torah only; the Talmudic account makes no reference to any translation of the other books. What is more, the Talmudic account lists a number of textual emendations that they made in the course of translation. These were made so that the idolatrous Greeks, who would now be able to read the text in their own language for themselves, would not fall into error or misunderstanding.

            What is remarkable is that the received Greek language text of the Torah does not contain any of these emendations, and is therefore not the text which is described in the Talmudic account. We also have, as I have intimated above, no idea of the provenance of the Greek text of the other books; it is likely that at least some of them were translated at a quite late date by Christians.

            Both for the reason that the Septuagint, properly so called, is a translation in a foreign language rather that the original text, and the fact that the provenance of the entire Greek-language version, to include that of the five books of the Torah, is shrouded in mystery and unknown, they cannot be considered authoritative. They are not so considered by any serious Jewish scholar.

            Based on the testimony of the Talmud, the Masoretic text is not “younger,” despite the fact that the vagaries of preservation have allowed the survival of a few parchment or papyrus copies of the Septuagint that were made before the Ben Asher Codex, the oldest surviving complete copy of Tanach. The text of the codex is undeniably older than the Greek translation.

            Incidentally, your assertion about the passages from Tanach quoted in the New Testament is flatly untrue.

            Far from being verbatim quotations from the received Greek text as we have it, there are numerous places in which these passages are at variance with the regular Greek text, often grossly so, and even more so with the Masoretic text. This can readily and easily be verified by laying the two texts side by side; all that is required is literacy in Greek.

            Source: https://pjmedia.com/faith/2016/12/20/ask-the-rabbi-why-is-the-masoretic-text-authoritative/

            Like

        1. Jews for Judaism is the Jewish version of extreme fundamentalism. Ironic you are trying to escape Christian fundamentalist and you turn to Jewish fundism. I used to argue with Jewish anti commissionaires on CARM all the time, They enlisted a student from a liberal Yeshiva to confront me,He was supposed to shoot me down,Their gunslinger coming to outdraw our gunslinger, But we agree with each other. enough he wound up helping me argue against them.

          Like

  2. Rabbi’s not “wrong”. The Dead Sea scrolls, which include portions of all books except Esther and Nememiah, were written between 200 B.C. and 70 A.D. In that same period, rabbis began establishing the standard Masoretic Text.

    the fact is, there were variants of “biblical texts” before they were compiled into what we call the Masoretic Text. There were sometimes two different versions of the same book, each with slight differences than the other, and both versions were in use. The “rabbis” of those times – really, more like scribes – began, at that time, to glean through the various versions to determine which should be included in the Masoretic Text. Doubtless, they had some type of criteria – perhaps, for example, they knew one version pre-dated the other, and perhaps they went with the one that was older (or, newer? I don’t know the criteria they used).

    But, the bottom line is this: Back in the days of the Dead Sea Scrolls, there were indeed different versions of books floating around, having been written down (by hand, of course) in different places at different times. Even among the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves, there are two “conflicting” copies of the same book (although, I haven’t found any scholar that thinks the differences amount to any real “challenges”). The Masoretic Texts were, essentially, the result of going through all the various versions and settling on one version.

    The LXX? Nobody even knows who translated the LXX, and the Jews don’t necessarily take any credit for any of it except the Torah portion.

    Like

  3. re: “Blood sacrifice is central to the Torah’s concept of substitutionary atonement.”

    I’m not sure that’s entirely correct. In Judaism, “atonement” is basically achieved by *repentence*.

    In Judaism, the life of the sacrifice was not offered as a penalty in a juridical sense to avert Heaven’s punishment, not to have man’s sins laid upon it as upon the scapegoat of the Day of Atonement, and thus to have the animal die in his place, but as a typical ransom of “life by life”; the blood sprinkled by the priest upon the altar serving as the means of a renewal of man’s covenant of life with God . In Mosaic ritualism the atoning blood thus actually meant the bringing about of a reunion with God, the restoration of peace between the soul and its Maker.

    But, this is why Jews don’t have a real problem with not having a Temple or sacrifices now: Atonement was *always* about repentence. Atonement itself wasn’t “paid for”, either by grain or fruit or animal sacrifice. Those sacrifices were basically *signs* of repentence; offerings made, not in order to “appease” God, but in order to be *pleasing* to God, and at the same time, to show an understanding (to God) of “what sin costs”.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s