"Stranger still, the ancient religion of the Jews survives, when all the religions of every ancient race of the pre-Christian world have disappeared. Again it is strange that the living religions of the world all build on the religious ideas derived from the Jews" - The Ancient World, Professor T.R. Glover

"According to the materialistic and positivist criterion, this people ought to have perished long ago. It's survival is a mysterious and wonderful phenomenon demonstrating that the life of this people is governed by a special predetermination..."
- The Meaning of History, Professor Nicholas Berdkilaev of the Moscow Academy of Spiritual Culture

"It was Judaism that brought the concept of a God-given universal moral law into the world...the Jew carries the burden of God in history and for this he has never been forgiven" - Distinguished Catholic Scholar Edward H. Flannery

Fact: Judaism is the only religion in the world that lost its holy land and has regained it.

Sunday, December 27, 2009

YHVH Verses Allah and the Uncorrupted Zionist Scriptures: My Debate with a Muslim

The following is an abridged version of an lengthy debated I had on You Tube in December, 2009 with an educated Muslim who goes by the name of "Sumawiganda". The debate began with the issue of the Name of the God of Israel - YHVH, and the god of Islam - Allah, and ended with the subject of Zionism, or should I say the hot-topic of Zionism, ended the debate.

Sumawi: Genesis 1:1
בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת האר
Bereishit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz.
"In Beginning Elohim"

My Response: Exodus 20:3
Lo-yeyeh lchah "elohim" achareem alpani
(You shall have no other god(s) before me.)
"Al-illah" The (crescent moon) god. Elohim?

Sumawi: You contradictyourself!
Elohim = Eloh + im
im = plural respect
Eloh = Alloh = Allah

My Response: "The contradiction is in your will to falsely make an object (in this case an "object of worship") a proper name. "God" "god"or "gods" are not proper names, they are "titles". Is your proper name "man"? No?
It would be like me stating in English, "The name of my God is "God".
"Elohim" in Hebrew can denote the one true God of Israel or it can denote false god(s) as well!
Elohim can indeed mean Allah - as a "false elohim".
Giving "titles" "proper names" is outside the scope of the Hebrew Biblical."

Sumawi: Jesus called his God, Allah! or Elloh. Are you against Jesus and New Testament?

My Response: "Jesus' Aramaic though similar to the pronunciation of "Al-lah" was not directed towards "Al-illah" the (crescent mood) god" of pre-Islam Arabia.
In other words, during the exact time period and even on the very "same day" that Jesus spoke the word "Ellah" in reference to God, the Arabians were saying "Allah" to their moon-god.
The God that Jesus prayed to and the god(s) Arabians prayed to were two different gods of the same time period altogether!
Islam now makes the attempts to portray their past crescent moon-god as YHVH - but they don't have His Name to do that with do they?"

Sumawi: Why did God use name ALLAH in the beginning of the bible, Genesis 1:1 why he didn't use YHWH? Or why "Yahweh" wasn't even the first thing GOD Almighty was addressed with in the Bible! Intriguing question huh ?
Why God almighty didn't introduce YHWH from Adam till Abraham instead He called himself Allah?

My Response: First a minor point: It was "Elohim" not "Allah" in Gen 1:1 - two different pronunciations.
Now here is an intriguing answer to your intriguing question:
Genesis is a record of God's (Elohim) power. - Genesis does not touch on the subject concerning the intimacy between God's spirit and man.
Only His chosen people (priests to the nations) are to receive His most personal Name.
Exodus 3:15 states:
"YHVH - Elohim of your fathers, Elohim of Abraham, Elohim of Isaac, and Elohim of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is My NAME FOR EVER, and thisis My memorial unto ALL generations."

Sumawi: And so Adam, Noah, Abraham WERE NOT CHOSEN PEOPLE ? This doesn't add up right!

My Response: Exodus 6:2-3
"And Elohim spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am YHVH: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El Shadai, but by My Name YHVH was I not known to them."
There was a reason!
Deuteronomy 7:6
"For thou art an holy people unto YHVH thy Elohim: YHVH thy Elohim hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth."
Exodus 19:6
"And ye [Israel] shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation."

Sumawi: I challenge you to USE your intellect!
If you believe in One God AND AGREE WITH HIS ATTRIBUTES to mention a few :

The Unique, The One without partner (Al Waahid)
The All knowing (Al Alim)
The First, The One whose Existence is without a beginning (Al Awwal)
The Last, The One whose Existence is without an end (Al Akhir)
The Living (Al Hayyu)
The Eternal (As samad)
..and many more.
If you agree with these attributes, then YOUR GOD IS MY GOD - the same God. A name can be anything. Use your intellect!

My Response: Wouldn't "true" intellect tell one to listento what YHVH states about His very own personal name?
Psalms 29:2
"Give unto YHVH the glory due unto His Name; worship YHVH in the beauty of holiness"
Isaiah 42:8
"I am YHVH: that is My Name"
Wow, that's real clear, is it not?
Here is some Biblical intellect for you:
Psalms 96:4
"For all the "elohim" of the nations are idols ("eli-lim" in the Hebrew): but YHVH made the heavens"
Psalms 34:3
"O magnify YHVH with me, and let us exalt "His Name" together."
Fact: The personal name of YHVH is stated nearly 7,000 times in the Hebrew Bible (three times more than any appellation such as El, Eloh, or Elohim) yet this most holy Name is not mentioned "once" in the Koran! It is to this fact, that all you can say is, "use your intellect"?
Get spiritually real!

Sumawi: "What version of Bible areyou using? Please advise."

My Response: "I don't believe in "versions". May YHVH save us fromthe Gentile translators. (And I myself am a Hebrew Bible - reading Gentile).
The Hebrew Bible must be read and understood in the Hebrew - the language YHVH revealed Himself to His prophets, and from where His most personal Name was given!
Ezekiel 39:7 states:
"So will I make My holy Name known in the midst of My people Israel; and I will not let them pollute My Holy Name any more: and the Gentiles shall know that I am YHVH, the Holy One in Israel."

Sumawi: "How do you pronounceYHVH? Don't lie to me!"

My Response: "We know that the first part is pronounced "yah" because of the Hebrew names within the Bible carry that Name such as Yer-mah-YAH-HU (Jeremiah) Ovad-YAH (Obadiah), Ye-sha-YAH-HU (Isaiah).
We also know that it ends with the shortened "H" sound, along withthe two middle letter "Vav" with an original sounding "W" sound."

"Sumami, I know what your getting at.
Just know that the nations (including weak Israel) can't profane that Name.
The Messianic Age brings in that Name in it's full glory."

Sumawi: "ahahahah ...you are guessing and not sure how to pronounce it.
Well, doesn't add up right ... you are obsessed with YHVH as his personal name butyou are not sure how to call him ????
I think this is end of story ...
If you are true Jesus follower, call the true God just like Jesus called Him, Allah."

My Response: YHVH is not to be pronounced until the true line of David messiah comes, as you noted Jesus "prophet of Islam - to Muslims" didn't even pronounce it, did he?
It's not a question on whether we know how to pronounce it or not, its a matter of holy reverence towards that holy Name.
I have never heard YHVH taken it in vain - the ones who did in the Bible died immediately, but I hear "god" (Allah) being taken in vain all the time!
The real question is, why doesn't Islam have even an reference of that name?

Sumawi: "Okay now you are admit that you DON'T KNOW HOW to pronounce your God's name while you are obsessed with the name. And you said IT IS A MATTER OF HOLY REFERENCE ! A-HA ! This is what I have been talking about the whole discussion: A REFERENCE OF WHO HE IS - YOU ACKNOWLEDGE HIS CHARACTER AND HIS ATTRIBUTE (in arabic = sifah).
You acknowledge he is one, unique=AHAD
You acknowledge he is The Highest Glory=Akbar
You acknowledge he is The Living, never Die, Eternal=SAMAD
and so on and so forth..."

My Response: "I never said I didn't know how to pronounce YHVH, you said that.
YHVH is not to be spoken "while knowing" how to pronounce it in every day usage. Instead we say HaShem meaning "The Name".
The appellations you named doesn't speak what His name means or Is.
When the nations recognize His Name for what it truly means, Israel will be gloried in the site of all nations.
Ezekiel 37:28 states:
"And the gentiles shall know that I "YHVH" do sanctify Israel,when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore."

Sumawi: "So you know the true pronunciation of YHWH?
Then you should publish your thesis in biblical communityand to Jewish scholars around the world."
1. "the true pronunciation of YHWH is quite lost."
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language,
David Crystal, pg. 9, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
2. "The true pronunciation of this name, by which God was known to the Hebrews, has been entirely lost."
The New Ungers Bible Dictionary, pg. 781,
Ed. Merrill Unger, Moody Press, Chicago, 1988.

My Response: "The sources that you give are gentile sources who have an interest (likethat of Islam) in having that Name lost to promote their gentile non-YHVH religion.
Perhaps you should learn Hebrew and then read Genesis 2:4, Psalms 68:4 and Isaiah 26:4 as well as many other places in the Book of Psalms in the Hebrew."

Sumawi: "I am a Muslim and believe AL HAYY is one of the beautiful name of God.It is there recorded in Quran Hu Wa Ha Yu (HWHY), I believe in Quran entirely and consequently I believe He the Living is one of His beautiful name."

My Response: "Your very posts in debating the pronunciation of YHVH proves your motivation sumawi! The title "Al Hayy" means nothing more to you than trying to prove that YHVH is Allah,
Q. "Why is YHVH used three times as much as Elohim throughout the Hebrew Bible as God's Most personal Name if "Elohim" means "Allah" of Mohammad?

Sumawi: Corruption of the scribes! - Jeremiah 8:8
As proof: Jesus NEVER called his God JHWH. Why? Because Jesus knew the correct name is Allah or Elloh or Eloh or Aloh.
The Old Testament is not reliable, the false scribes had injected YHVH to become prominence. If YHVH is the proper name of God, why did Jesus never called Him YHVH - not EVEN ONCE, my friend?
Another proof: Jesus taught US (you and me) on daily prayer or Lord prayer .. "Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name"
Why not Our YHWH, which are in heaven?

My Response: "Was the prophet Jeremiah corrupt was he wrote Jeremiah 8:8?
If not, then what we have from Jeremiah is something true and uncorrupted. Did Jesus (prophet of Islam according to Muslims) say that the Hebrew scriptures were corrupted? According to Jesus the scriptures are not corrupt:
"Search the scriptures; 'FOR IN THEM' ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." - John 5:39
It's ridiculous to suggest that Jesus wanted the Pharisees to search "corrupted scriptures" that he believed testified of him!

Your answer proves 2 things:
1. You concede that YHVH is the most prominent Name throughout the Hebrew Bible over Elohim.
2. Your goal via Islam, is to blot out this most Holy and Most Personal Name of your creator and replace with the pre-Islam name of a moon-god!

Jesus - a prophet of Islam according to the Muslims - also stated:
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from The Law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18
This would prove that the "same law" that Jesus was talking about in Matthew 5:18 was indeed the "same Law" that Jeremiah was talking about in Jeremiah 8:8 was not corrupted as Islam claims.
Note: Only those who don't obey it make the uncorrupted Law seem vain was the meaning of the text!
Did you notice the very text of Jeremiah 8:8-9 carries the very Name of "YVHV" (that according to you, Jesus never spoke) twice! Are we to believe that the Islamic proof-text of this so-called "scripture corruption" was itself corrupted? Give me a break!

Sumawi: I believe whosoever believes in the one true God with his heart, mind and soul they will be saved as in Quran 2:62
"Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians -- whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor shall they grieve"
Based on that, YOU ARE SAVED TOO! InsyaAllah.

My Response: Sumawi, please, I know you mean well, but come on,
I know the difference in a Meccan revelation and a Medinan revelation.
The one you gave is "nasikh" - (sura 2:106 / 16:100)
Here, let me give you the "latest version":
"And whoever believes not in Allah AND HIS MESSENGER - then surely We have have prepared burning Fire for the disbeliever" - Sura 48:13
Still think I'm "saved" Sumawi?

Sumawi: As the Quran 48:13 says : YES you are saved! Insya Allah. Quran 48:13 doesn't say "And whoever believes not in Allah AND MUHAMMAD.... right?
See how true the Quran is:
Because you believe in YHVH for me means you believe in the TRUE ONE GOD which we the Muslims call him Allah. I have a Jehovah Witness friend. I told him, "you are a believer in One True God without partner and you are the follower of the God's messenger".

My Response: From Maulana Muhammad Ali English translation:
Quote: "And whoever believes not in Allah AND HIS MESSENGER - then surely We have have prepared burning Fire for the disbeliever" - Sura 48:13
Ayat (verse) 29 of the same sura: (Quote)
"Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those with him are firm of heart against the disbelievers"
Ayat 29 explain very vividly ayat 13 (above).

Sura 98:6
"Those who disbelieve from among the "People of the Book" and idolaters will be in the fire of hell abiding therein..."

Sura 18:102
"Do those who disbelieve think that they can take My servants to be friends besides Me? Surely, We have prepared hell as an entertainment for the disbelievers"

Ali's footnote of this ayat:
"The Christians are meant here, because theirs is the most prominent example of have taken a servant of Allah, a prophet, for God"

Now compared sura 18:102 with sura 5:54:
"O you who believe, take not the Jews and the Christians for friends......surely Allah guides not the unjust people"

Sura 3:85
"And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him. and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers"
Sura 98:6
"Those who disbelieve from among the "People of the Book" and idolaters will be in the fire of hell abiding therein. They are the worst of creatures." - sura 98:6

Sumawi: The answer to Surah 3:85
"Islam" means surrender /submission to the true God Alone and his will. Therefore, if you submit yourself to Him alone then you are a Muslim. There are many prophets but only One religion and One message. And Muhammad is the last and the seal of prophet.
The answer to sura 98:6
"Those who disbelieve among the People of the Book" ... do you understand this? Those who disbelieve (NOT ALL) only some of them of the People of the Book. Some of disbelieved from among the Jew and Christians and idolaters. Gotit?

My Response: The sura states: "WHOEVER" believes not in Allah and his messenger. then surely we have prepared burning Fire for the disbelievers."
This "whoever" literally means everyone who don't believe in Muhammad. "Those who disbelieve" meaning, from out of the Jews and Christians and idolaters who had not converted to Islam!
Proof: sura 5:51 "O you who believe take not the Jews and Christians for friends....surely Allah guides not the unjust people." The religion of the people is what is singled out in the Koran.

Sumawi: No...no..no..... you misunderstood! "His Messenger" in Quran 4:80 IS NOT exclusively Muhammad, it is depend on who you or one follows. It could be Moses (such as a Jew) orJesus (such as Christian, not trinitarian Christian).
As proof : Quran 2:62
"Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."
Quran 3:110
"... If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors."
Focus on this:

Quran 3:113
"Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of Allah all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration."
Let's Repeat: Quran 2:62 ...
"Christian & Jew whoever believes ..shall no fear..."
Quran 3:110
Christian & Jew ... "among them are some who have faith"
Quran 3:113
Christian & Jew... "Not all of them are alike..."
IN GOD EYES, some of Jew and some Christians ARE TRUE BELIEVER.

My Response: Since the religious Jews are "submitted" (Islam) to the same YHVH of 2:255, and are not seeking another religion in being "submitted" according to 3:85, let's petition the Palestinians in giving Israel their huge religious-Zionist State!
As your post would indicate, monotheistic Judaism Israeli Jews do "submit" and indeed follow Allah, right? It's not like they follow another God outside Islam, right?
Does YHVH of 2:255 want the Palestinians murder fellow "submitted" Jews?
What does the "noor" (bright-light) hadiths say?

The so-called Jewish settlers of the West Bank are not "among those" of The People Book who disbelieve according to 98:6.
Their God is YHVH according to 2:255, and they are "submitted" to YHVH according to 3:85.
They follow "their messenger"Musa (Moses), in accordance to 48:13. They recite Allah's "Taruat" (Torah) messages according to 3:113!
Therefore, JUDEAH AND SAMARIAH (the whole West Bank) needs to be part of the religious-Zionist State of Israel to the glory of Allah!
What do you say Sumawi?

Sumawi: Your question is more about politics and about Zionism - a movement to create a State of Israel - than religious discussion. I can't answer your question here, this is beyond our scope of topics.

My Response: All politics is religious based. Basically, I'm testing your "light interpretation" of 2:255, 3:85, 3:113, 4:80, 48:13, and 98:6 to see if you really do believe that, or if you were using al-takiyah (even subconsciously) and not realizing it.
Zionism is very Biblical:
"For I will take you from among the Gentiles, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land." - Ezekiel. 37:24
So what about those "submitted to Allah"(3:85, 3:113, 4:80, 48:13)? Those Jewish West Bank "submitted" settlers?

Sumawi: If Iraq attack Quwait and occupied the land with oppression and plus flooded the land with Iraqi settlement. Both are Muslim countries yet it is still not justified. If I am Quwaiti, I will defend my country till the end. At the end who is the mastermind?
Again I have tons of answer but I don't want to discuss politics.
Concerning 9/11 - who is the mastermind?
Was it an indisde job? or Al-Qaida ? What is Al-Qaida?
No discussion on politics, I can't answer further.

My Response: You are a moderate pretender. Your misguided mindset towards Israeli Jews proves you really don't believe what you posted concerning 2:255-256, 3:85, 3:113, 4:80, 48:6, 98:6. Your goal was spiritual use of takiyah.
Tell me sumawi, what "LAND" was suras 5:21 and 17:104 talking about, and "For Whom" was "the LAND" for?
Mastermind? Who indeed admitted to being the mastermind? Some Zionist or bin Laden and Zawahiri? Who are the ones calling them the "Magnificent 19"? the Zionists or the Wahabbists?

Getting back to Islam's god Allah and Judaism's YHVH, it dawned on me you really can't see the difference due to Islam's blinding you to the truth.
Islam's influence on you is so great that you are able to believe the 9/11 "white-supremacy" Zionist conspiracy instead of the confessed bin Laden himself that began with his 1998 fatwa!
This demonstrates that you don't have the spiritual ability to even discern between YHVH and the pre-Islamic crescent moon-god named Al-iallh (Allah).

Sumawi: Zionism is wrong ! NOT ALL Jews are Zionist and Judaism IS NOT Zionism!
Bin Laden? Who is he? Whoever made an attack on 9/11 is wrong!
Who is the mastermind? Building #7? The Pentagon? - A bunch of unanswered questions.
I will stop replying to your comments about Zionism, 9/11, etc. because it is beyond scope of discussion. In the beginning the topic was if YHWH=Allah, and yes, they are the same.

My Response: Zionism is an intricate part of the Hebrew Bible!
The return of Exiles from Babylon was what? Zionism.
What is the prophecy in Ezekiel 37:21-28? Zionism!
Zionism is not only Biblical but is part of YHVH!
Judaism is based upon the everlasting covenant which consist of four elements:
1. YHVH 2. The Jewish People 3. The Torah 4. The Land of Israel.
All four elements make up the everlasting covenant and are literally saturated throughout the Hebrew Torah and the writings of the Hebrew Prophets!

Who is Bin Laden? Who is al-ikhwān al-muslimūn (Muslim Brotherhood) that is 70 million strong, that groups such as "Islamic Jihad" "Al-Queda" and "Hamas" that derived from this Al -Banna secret society? Was Hassan al-Banna a Zionist too?
Who was Abdullah Yusuf Azzam the West Bank global jihadist who inspired Bib Laden? A Zionist?
Perhaps we could read Bin Laden's February 23, 1998 Fatwa word for word, and then ask ourselves: Is this man controlled by theZionist?
Sumawi, quite playing the "Zionist Conspiracy game"!

Your Zionist conspiracy mindset ties into your Jewish scripture corruption conspiracy. They run hand in hand, just like Palestinian Jewish temple denial and Holocaust denial run hand in hand! Can't you see that? Have you ever though there might be a "Gentile Conspiracy" against the Jews?

Sunday, November 8, 2009

What is the Relationship Between the Messiah and God?

There is a big differences between Christianity's messiah and Judaism's messiah. Islam's version of a messiah / Mahdi - the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam, is so far out into left-field that other than having to deal with the Iranian president and nutcase Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who thinks he was chosen to hasten his Mahdi's return with nuclear war, it can't be taken seriously.

Judaism's concept of the End of Days messiah (meshiach in Hebrew) is strictly Hebrew in origin, including the relationship between the End of Days messiah and the God of Israel.
Christianity's concept of the End of Days messiah is also Hebrew in origin being that its very foundational concept is directly based upon the Hebrew Scriptures. However, Christianity's concept of the relationship between the End of Days messiah and the God of Israel is Hellenistic /Roman in origin rather than Hebraic.

There is a growing movement within the American churches to "discover" the Church's Hebrew roots of Christianity. When I hear of this, I want to say, "You ought to discover the Church's "Hellenistic roots" of Christianity"! Other than Jesus not fulfilling the prophesied accomplishments of the End of Days messiah,1 what splits Christianity from Judaism is the god-man (demigod) concept that originated in ancient Babylon, Egypt, Greece, and Rome.2

Christianity's make-up consists of Greek and Roman mythology being blended into the Hebrew scriptures, and the evidence of this can be found in today's Christmas Day (December 25 - Mithraism) the Christmas Tree (see Jeremiah 10:2-4) and Easter Bunny (Oestre' - the goddess of fertility).3 Notice, there is a very deep spiritual reason as to why there are no Gentile pagan-based nor pagan-influenced 'Jewish' holidays within Judaism!

No where within the Hebrew scriptures does it even come close as depicting the End of Days messiah as holding the status of a demigod, or where God personally fathers a son through a mortal woman. These concepts are foreign to the Hebrew prophets, and could only be included into the text by additions and going outside the prophecy context from what the Hebrew prophets intended to convey to the Hebrew people. For example, why does the Hebrew Bible need to warn the Son of God (the Word made flesh)?:
"And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men." - 2 Samuel 7:12-14

Notice in the prophesy above that there are three elements concerning the everlasting kingdom of God that is to be ruled by David's seed:
  1. It is seed from David's loins (not God's - see also Psalms 132:11) that God's everlasting kingdom will be based.
  2. The seed of David will have (as David himself had) a "father and son" relationship with God, but not in a Hellenistic-type relationship consisting of human-divinity.
  3. The seed of David is very special to God, but they are not infallible. They can (as did David) suffer from their own sin. Therefore, there is a necessity within the Hebrew Bible concept, for them to be warned even though the prophesy is that their kingdom will be everlasting.
One particular method that the Gentile Christian Bible translators did to help the blending effect between God and the messiah was to avoid translating the very personal name of God throughout the Hebrew Bible while placing great emphasis on the pronunciation of the name of Jesus (see Luke 1:31 / Philippians 2:10). By translating the very name of God (YHVH - pronounced Jehovah in English) as "The Lord" instead of His actual name,4 it becomes easier for Christianity to insert "Jesus" into the position of "The Lord".

There is a huge difference between God's declaration (spoken hundreds of times throughout the Hebrew Bible) "I am the Lord" verses "I am YHVH (Jehovah)". As James Tabor puts it in his book entitled "Restoring Abrahamic Faith" "The later is personal and direct. It immediately calls for a unique and singular understanding of the ONE GOD -identifying the ETERNAL ONE by Name".5 Also, which is more of a "pure" translation of Amos 9:6: "The LORD is His name." which taken literally, doesn't make sense, or "YHVH (Jehovah) is His name"?

Notice how the "Judaism is the correct religion" effect becomes more potent when the Hebrew Bible texts properly includes the very proper name of the God of Israel within prophecy texts:
  • O YHVH, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto THEE from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. Shall a man make gods unto himself, and they are no gods? Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them to know, I will cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is YHVH! - Jeremiah 16:19-21
  • Behold, the "Day of YHVH" cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. - Zechariah 14:1
  • I am YHVH: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. - Isaiah 42:8
  • Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to YHVH, to serve HIM, and to love the name of YHVH, to be His servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of My covenant. - Isaiah 56:6
  • ...they shall call on MY Name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, YHVH is my God. - Zechariah 13:9
What is amazing to me is that the Christian Bible, be it a Greek translation (including the Septuagint) or the standard 1611 King James Version, does not (not even in one single place) carry this very special and personal name of YHVH throughout their entire New Testament! κυριος (pronounced "Kurios" meaning "Lord") is used in its place. It is like they believed that the God of the Hebrew Bible didn't convey His personal-proper name to His Hebrew chosen people, giving them only a reference-title of Himself, even though the text of Exodus 3:15 along with Exodus 6:3 are quite clear in spelling out His distinct and personal Name.6

Given this fact, is becomes easy to see (through a translation compared to an original) the different doctrines of salvation between the Greek Christians and the Hebrew Jews:
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of "the Lord" shall be saved" - Romans 10:13
"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on "the name of YHVH" (Jehovah) shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as YHVH (Jehovah) hath said, and in the remnant whom shall call." - Joel 2:32 (Joel 3:5 in the Hebrew Bible)

When the Name of God is recognized as being God's Name forever, as God Himself declared (Exodus 3:15) then it becomes much easier to distinguish the relationship between the End of Days Hebrew messiah and YHVH:
"And he (the meshiach) shall stand and feed in the strength of YHVH, in the majesty of the Name of YHVH his God" - Micah 5:4
"And the Spirit of YHVH shall rest upon him (the meshiach) the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of YHVH. And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of YHVH." -Isaiah 11:2-3

It is from the Nicean Council of 325c.e. that the doctrine of the Trinity attempts to merge the End of Days messiah into the same substance of God as the "second person of the Godhead" even though the Hebrew "meshiach" - as the scriptures clearly indicates above - is separate from God and will fear his God. Given this Hebrew scripture fact, how then, could it be possible for the second god-person of the Godhead to fear the first god-person of the Godhead - as God, when the second god-person of the Godhead is supposed to be of the same god-substance as the first god-person in the Godhead to begin with? To ask it another way, how can the one true God (in the singular) fear Himself?

The New Testament describes Jesus' divinity as the following:
"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." - Philippians 2:9-11

Notice, that the Hebrew name of God is not mentioned within this and all New Testament context! Notice also, that it implies that Jesus now takes the position of "Lord" - the very title that the KJV replaced the Name YHVH with throughout its translation. This was done in order to glorify Christianity's foundational God while at the same time kept His personal name out of every context throughout the Christian Bible! How anti-Hebrew Bible can the Christian text get? Perhaps, having His proper Name placed within their text would create too many theological problems and therefore the ambiguous no-named title of "God the Father" was used instead?7

The Hebrew scripture from where the Christian text in Philippians quotes from tells a very different story in a very different context:
"Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I YHVH? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Savior; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Surely, shall one say, in YHVH have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. In YHVH shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory." Isaiah 45:21-25

From the Hebrew text above I always like to ask contain questions:
  • Which person of the Godhead used all nine of those personal pronouns in YHVH's declaration?"
  • Why is it, that Philippians describes a second Godhead-person sharing glory with the first Godhead person, when YHVH wanted to make it very clear by repeating Himself, that there are no other god(s) besides Him who was speaking and using those personal pronouns nine different times?
It also should be stated that unlike the Philippians context of every knee bowing to the second-person of the Godhead, YHVH makes it very clear His glory is not to be shared or given to another god: "I am YHVH: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another" - Isaiah 42:8
Also according to the Philippians text, it is the name of Jesus that is exalted and not the Name of YHVH. This is not the case according to the Hebrew scriptures:
" And YHVH shall be king over all the earth: in that day YHVH shall be one, and His name one" - Zechariah 14:9
This means that there will be no other gods worshiped by another name than that of YHVH, and that YHVH will be the only one worshiped with that Name throughout the whole earth! Oh, Christian, can you look directly into this holy Hebrew scripture that you claim as the Word of God, and say with a hardy Amen - SO BE IT?

Since Jesus clearly didn't fulfill the most prominent and vindicating messianic prophesies,1 Christianity does one of two things (sometimes both based on convenience):
  1. Look for a "Son of David" heavenly-angelic form of Jesus to fulfill the messianic prophesies that he didn't accomplish in his human "Son of David" form 2,000 years earlier.
  2. Apply all, or most all messianic prophesies as being fulfilled "spiritually"8 through the virgin-born Jesus, giving birth to Christian Preterism that denies all, or most all, aspects of physical Israel and the everlasting covenant.9
Whether Christianity views the fulfillment of the messianic prophesies through "human-form" as stressed by Christianity's proof text of Zechariah 13:6, or more of an angelic form as seen in Zechariah 14:4, Christians seem to take the physical "seed of David" requirement as just a mere reference rather than a very physical key-element of the "YHVH to physical Israel - everlasting covenant" (Psalms 105:8-11).

The context of Zechariah 13:6 (of which this one verse missionaries use to for Jewish conversion) reveals that the one with wounds between his arms (not in the hands) is indeed a false prophet, and was beaten by his own relatives for being a false prophet at the unfolding of the Messianic Age. (see verses 1-5 of the same chapter)

All Christians view Zechariah 14:4 as Jesus setting his feet upon the Mount of Olives. However, this text does NOT include the mention of the End of Days messiah. It is describing the Spirit of YHVH as referred in Ezekiel 43:1-7 descending just to the east of the Temple Mount - literally returning in the same manner and fashion as His spirit left in Ezekiel 11:23-24. This descending of YHVH Himself (not the human 'seed of David' His messiah) is in correlation with YHVH entering His Temple in Ezekiel 37:26-28. David, YHVH's meshiach, (mentioned in Ezekiel 37:24) is noted separate from YHVH in the Ezekiel 37:2-28 text and is the same "nasi" meaning "prince-president" that is found in the temple description text - Ezekiel: chapters 44-48 (see Ezekiel 44:3 as a start reference).

In order to stay with the true Hebrew prophecy text as it was given to the Hebrew people, a Christian must first be willing to give up their Gentile-influenced New Testament preconceived idea that the End of Days messiah is YHVH Himself in the form of virgin born Sonship. According to the Hebrew Bible, YHVH is not the messiah, and the messiah (physical offspring of David) is Not YHVH.

1. The End of Days Hebrew messiah will fulfill the following prophecies:
A. In-Gathering of the House of Israel exiles - Jeremiah 16:15 / Ezekiel 37:24-25
During Jesus' time, there was a Jewish diaspora - just the exact opposite of the prophecies.
B. Building of the third and final temple - Ezekiel 37:26-28 / Ezekiel chapters 40-48 / Isaiah 33:20 / Amos 9:11. During Jesus' time, the Jewish temple was torn down - just the exact opposite of the prophecies.
C. Universal knowledge of the God of Israel - Isaiah 11:9 / Jeremiah 31:33 / Zechariah 14:9. During Jesus' time, a very small percentage of the world's population knew anything about him, or about the Torah and God of Israel - just the exact opposite of the prophecies.
D. World Peace - Isaiah 2:4 / Isaiah 11:6-8
During Jesus' time, the Jewish nation was being subjugated by Rome which led to the greatest Jewish tragedies in 70CE and 132 CE. - just the exact opposite of the prophecies.
E. Resurrection of the Dead - Isaiah 26:19 / Daniel 12:2 / Ezekiel 37:12-13
Though the New Testament claims that some graves of the saints were opened (Matthew 27:52-53) the Hebrew prophecy is that "all" the graves are to be opened, and not just "all" the saints, but "all" the wicked as well, unto everlasting shame and abhorrence - Daniel 12:2
F. From the Tribe of Judah - Number 1:18-44 / Numbers 34:14 / Leviticus 23:10
Bible based "tribal affiliation" came directly from the father, not the mother. In order for Jesus to even be considered a Dividical king-messiah, he would have to be a "seed" from the Judean tribe - not a virgin born demigod, who of such origin, would be bypassing the Biblical requirement and prophecy of Genesis 49:10.

2. A. "The "sky gods," patriarchal male figures who resided on mountaintops such as Olympus, often came down to Earth to take human wives. "Virgin births" were common-a union of the "Father god" with a human maiden." - Answers.com > http://www.answers.com/topic/greek-gods-and-goddessess

B. The mythical story of the foundation of Rome (7 1/2 centuries before Jesus) starts with the god of Mars fathering the human female (Vestal) Virgin Rhea Silvia with two human males Romulus and Remus.

C. "The Ancient Egyptians believed that their Pharaoh was the god Horus, son of Re, the sun god. When a pharaoh died he was believed to be united with the sun and then a new Horus ruled on earth." > http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/Homework/egypt/pharaoh.htm

D. Alexander the Great, though having an earthly father named Phillip, believed as did his own mother to be fathered by a god, and called himself the "son of god"!

3. Web-sites regarding Christmas Day, Christmas tree, and that egg-laying Easter Bunny:
A. http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_sel.htm
B. http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_tree.htm
C. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eostre

4. The name YHVH (Jehovah) has no grammatical connection nor translational link to the Hebrew meaning of the word Lord (Adon). YHVH is a compound name taken from the Hebrew root-verb "hayah" meaning "to be" connecting and linking His proper revealed name (His eternal being) to the past, present, and future.

5. "Restoring Abrahamic Faith" by James D. Tabor - page 17 > http://genesis2000.org/

6. "And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, YHVH (Jehovah) God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: THIS IS MY NAME FOREVER, and this is my memorial unto all generations." - Exodus 3:15
"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El Shaddi, but by my name YHVH (Jehovah) was I not known to them." - Exodus 6:3

7. The Early Church baptized in the "personal" name of "Jesus" that according to traditional Christian doctrine, more-less replaced the Name of YHVH. See Acts 2:38 / Acts 8:12,16 / Acts 19:5.
Today's modern Trintarians baptize using the "office-titles" name - (singular) of Father - Son - Holy Ghost. See Matthew 28:19

8. One example: "In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old" -Amos 9:11
Compared to the "New Testament" text:
"Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:" - Acts 15: 14-16

Of course, such an interpretation of spiritual "fulfillment" negates the entire Ezekiel vision of the very physical third and final temple as depicted in chapters 40-48 and Ezekiel 37:27-28. It also negates the very words of the prophecy that the book of Acts referred to. In Amos 9:11 YHVH states, ''I will build it (the tabernacle) as in the days of old". A "spiritual" tabernacle that the book of Acts referred to, could certainly "not" be described "as it was in the days of old"! Notice, it was these "exact words" from the book of Amos 9:11 that the Acts 15:14-16 quote leaves out! I wonder why?

9. Christian Perterism and other forms of Christian "replacement theology" attempts to change every fundamental basis and concept of the Hebrew scriptures, in the name of "fulfillment". Their changes include the following:
  1. The one true God of Israel YHVH (Isaiah 45:21) - changing His proper and personal Name to the non-Hebrew title "The Lord" via Christian translations, then changing His very nature of oneness (Deuteronomy 6:4) to a three god-person Trinity (1 John 5:7).
  2. The Physical and covenant land of Israel (Ezekiel 37:25 / Joel 3:2 ) - changing it to an angelic-heavenly land (Galatians 4:25-26 / Revelations 21:2,10)
  3. Israel, YHVH's chosen people (Deuteronomy 7:6) - changing them to a "new" (Gentile) Israel (Romans 2:28-29 / Galatians 6:16).
Notice, all three changes, change the whole spiritual DNA system and foundational base of the Hebrew scriptures in order to reflect and fit the Gentile concept of Gentile God(s) the Gentile spiritual dwelling, and the Gentiles as a specially selected people. Christianity is certainly a religion fitted and designed "for" it biggest base - the Gentiles!

Friday, September 11, 2009

Is God a Man?

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent." - Numbers 23:19
"And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent. " - I Samuel 15:29

Christian Missionaries use the advent of the three angel-messengers (malachim in Hebrew) that appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18 as a "proof text" that God can and does appear as a "man" thereby pointing to Jesus the man as a god-man / demigod. Missionaries are very quick to point out that these "men" eat and drank like normal men which is nothing more than an attempt to portray these angels as a Jesus-type who eat and drank as well.

With this Genesis 18 mindset the standard missionary argument goes something like this:
1. Christian don't worship God as a man, but the one unseen God who came in the form of man (Word made flesh - St. John 1:14).
2. God / Jesus appeared to Abraham in the form of man just like He did with the man Jesus.
3. Jesus never lied (as God don't) thereby nullifying to "Jewish attempt" of applying Numbers 23:19 and I Samuel 15:29 against Christianity.

While it is true that the one man-angel that stayed with and communicated with Abraham using God's words, was in effect God appearing and talking with Abraham in the form of a man, that is not Judaism's objection with the Christian proof text of Genesis 18. Judaism realizes that whether it's a man-angel, whirlwind, burning bush, or donkey, God can use any form He wants to express a message. However, His message source is NEVER His true identifying form. God is simply not limited to earthly forms - "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have built" - I Kings 8:27

There are a three of things that should be addressed in understanding the events of Genesis 18.
1. All three messengers first came to Abraham - all three had a primary message to Abraham alone. Genesis 18: 5, 8 states "they said" meaning the conversation to Abraham was from all three - not just a certain one of them spoke to Abraham.
2. All three messengers - not just one - "eat" with Abraham (verse 8). I have to make a point of this because of the Christian emphasis on this part of the text that tries to make the angels more human like thereby tying to tie these angel(s) in with human Jesus.
3. There angels came with two messages. One angel was to announce that Sarah would have a child by Abraham, and two angels were sent for the destruction of Sodom and the rescue of Lot and his family.

The trinitarians who try tying their doctrine into the text using the three messenger angels as depicting the God of Israel does themselves a great disfavor. They show the heart of the trinitarian movement which is the worship of three god "persons" thereby the worship of three gods. Being that the angels that appeared to Abraham were indeed separate from each other, only adds to the realization that the Trinity is indeed a worship of three separate gods in personhood when they attempt connecting Genesis 18 with a the Trinity doctrine.

When Judaism uses Numbers 23:19 and I Samuel 15:29 as a proof text against Christianity, it's not talking about a message coming from God that came in a form of man's image. Not only angels but the very prophets who carried the word of God have the appearance of a man. However, can any Christian or otherwise state that any of the three "men" that appeared to Abraham were human beings or in a true sense merely "men"? I would think not. Therefore, when the Bible tells us that God is not a man, its specific message is that the essence of God is not that of "humankind". It's message is that from humankind lies can be produced, but from God who remains outside of humankind lies cannot be produced. This is also why idols that were made with human hands were so offensive to God - men would worship a human creation as a god as if it was indeed God! (See Isaiah 44:8-18)

With this in mind can we say Jesus who was born of human woman was of humankind? If Jesus was indeed a "created" person (i.e. the entire human aspect of Jesus) then he can, for all tense and purposes, become a human idol. Thus, we have "the crucifix" with the human Jesus on it hanging all over the Catholicism world and human pictures of Jesus hanging all over protestant Christianity world. The essence of Christianity is that in order for one to be saved, one "must" go through and enter the "human door" of Jesus. That is, the first baseline foundation of the Christian belief system is centered on the belief that God came to earth as a human-man. Every further belief of the one unseen God of Israel in Christianity evolves around this baseline concept.

As a human Jesus states: " I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture." - St. John 10:9
Paul states that the Law of Moses is dead thorough the human body of Jesus: "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ" - Romans 7:4
The Holy Christian Communion's main focus evolves around the human body of Jesus: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ" - I Corinthians 10:16

I don't mean to say that every Christian is nothing more than a idol worshiper (although the majority of world Christianity indeed are). There are some (I call them the Christian Zionist-remnant) who worship the true of Israel though through gentile blindness or ignorance - yes it is the gentile Christians who are the blind ones when it comes to Hebrew Bible truths. [see Isaiah 25:7] I am saying however, that according to Hebrew Bible the purest form in worshiping and communicating with the God of Israel - Jehovah - is not through human sacrifices, vicarious atonement, polytheism that is called monotheistic, wise-men astrology, or anything that has its foundation or doorway-entrance into humanhood!

Jesus spoke many times of himself as "son of man"1 meaning being apart of humanhood - the "revelation" of "the Son of God" was to come after his humanhood after the "son of man" ministry was completed. However, it was the "son of man" concept that the Hebrews scriptures warns us about - even going to the extent of saying that no salvation can come out of a "son of man" venue: "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. {help: or, salvation} " -Psalms 146:3
Again, the Hebrew scriptures are not stating that a human can't be anointed to speak God's words - even the words of salvation (as with the Hebrew prophet Isaiah whose name means salvation) but it is against connecting God with humanhood as we see in New Testament text doing in John 1:1 connecting with John 1:14.

The usual Christian response to Numbers 23:19 and I Samuel 15:29 is that, "Jesus never lied - so it couldn't been talking about him". Even though the main subject of the text is concerning "humanhood" - "lying" being the sub-subject, there is New Testament issues to be taken up with the Christians over textual falsehoods coming from the words of Jesus.
" Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." - Matthew 16:28
This Matthew 16:28 text is inline with an earlier one: "But when they persecute you in this city, flee into another; for truly I say to you, In no way shall you have finished the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes" - Matthew 10:23
Jesus proclaimed that there were people standing there hearing him speak that would not die a physical death until after they had seen him "coming" in his kingdom. So the question I ask Christians is, when did this "coming" occur during the first century that allowed some of the people that heard Jesus speak of his coming indeed seen that "coming" he was talking about? Unless you are perterist, you will find this very hard to answer. If you are perterist, you'll have a hard time explaining "this coming" itself.

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
Jesus had just finished listing the horrible events that were to befall the earth including the words "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." It's from this scripture that the "great tribulation" doctrine in Christianity is based. However in truth seeking, can we say that the first century (the generation of Jesus' time) saw such a great tribulation that there has not been anything like it seen with such magnitude on the earth since the generation of Jesus' time? Notice, everything mentioned in Matthew 24 Jesus declared it to be fulfilled during the generation in which he was earthly living!

It must be noted that the writers of the Gospels (who wrote the gospels after Paul's letters) had already seen the destruction of the temple that had stood for hundreds of years, and from that point of view it would seem like destruction like no other. As far as the temple destruction it had been a time of tribulation like no other. Also Paul was of the impression that world redemption was just around the corner during his time: "The night is far spent, the day is at hand" - Romans 13:12
And even the writer of the book of Revelations has Jesus stating: " I come quickly" - Revelations 3:11 / 22:7,12,20

It is clear the New Testament writers didn't expect Christianity the last more than 2000 years.
So when Christians state that Jesus never lied (or given false statements) in regards to Numbers 23:19 and I Samuel 15:29 a call for a response regarding these New Testament texts should be requested of them. This is all in addition to the fact that if Jesus is not the true messiah (Mashiach ben David) that is to come at the "End of Days" for the redemption of Israel, then the whole Christian concept is based upon a false foundation. Thus, the scriptures Jeremiah 16:19 and Zachariah 8:23 would included all gentiles involved with Christianity as well as those of Islam.

1. Just from the book of Matthew alone the phrase "son of man" is stated by Jesus several times in reference to himself:
Matthew 8:20 / 9:6 / 10:23 / 11:19 / 12:8, 32, 40, / 13:37, 41, / 16:13, 16:27-28 / 17:9, 12, 22 / 18:11 / 19:28 / 20:18,28 / 24:30, 37, 39, 44 / 25:13, 31, / 26:2, 24, 45, 64,

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Predestination and Eternal Security

Disclaimer: Though my religion of faith is Judaism this blog reflects my own spiritual journey and study and may not reflect "traditional Judaism" in all statements throughout this blog.

As with Albert Einstein's "theory of relativity" predestination and eternal security are relative depending which side a the spectrum (time - Genesis 1:1 or eternity - Isaiah 57:15) one views from. While eternal security and predestination are compatible with each other in the eternal realm they are not compatible with time. With time comes "the choice" that is between good and evil. That choice then brings forth the eternal element of each person.

Where people get into trouble is by placing eternal security / the eternal acknowledgment of every person and eternal predestination inside of - and thereby effected by time - when it has nothing to do with time. Where time ends eternity begins. It is only in the eternal state of being (i.e. God) that no soul never has been or ever can be lost. There is no need of redemption in that state of God's mind. The salvation and redemption of God that we see in the Bible only brings us into that spiritual habitation. Therefore, there is in a sense two expressions of eternal security. The first being of the eternal mind of God that is beyond all elements of past, present, and future. The second being one that is indeed effected by time and choice.

The Hebrew scriptures are very clear on what man should be spiritually aware of concerning his eternal security in time:
"If the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live." Ezekiel 18:21-22
"When the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die." - Ezekiel 18:24

When I hear Fundamental Independent Baptist preachers actually make the statement that as long as one has accepted the Christian messiah he / she can actually live everyday of their lives for the devil and still be "saved" I can't help but think of the above biblical standard for salvation and how the God of Israel states "For I am the LORD, I change not" - Malachi. 3:6.

These same Baptist preachers will no doubt be one of the first ones to claim that the Jews who prescribe to the above biblical principle of eternal security have been "spiritually blinded"! But from my spiritual perception their doctrine has blinded them of the original standard truth insomuch that their souls are in danger of dying in their "devil-teaching" sin, where the above biblical standard that they have rejected will be applied to their very souls! In a sense, by placing God's eternal security where nothing is lost into the element of time, they are in effect making their sin an eternal part of God as well - now that's deep spiritual blindness!

Judaism's eternal security is in the Torah itself for it is a marriage contract between God and His Bride Israel - Isaiah 62:4-5. A man who is true in his heart towards his communion with God has eternal security just as a man who is true in his heart when making wedding vows to his bride has "marriage security" - a new term I just coined. God wants a whole and perfect heart: "Let your heart therefore be perfect with the LORD our God, to walk in his statutes, and to keep his commandments, as at this day." - I Kings 8:61
"Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart." - Psalms 119:2

For those who don't think that a prefect heart and perfect will are possible (which shows spiritual blindness towards the Jewish scriptures) I give you the following scriptures to ponder:
"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man." - Ecclesiastes 12:13
" I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way. O when wilt thou come unto me? I will walk within my house with a perfect heart." Psalms 101:2
"I have remembered thy name, O LORD, in the night, and have kept thy law." -Psalms 119:55
"And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father." - I Kings 15:11
"And he (Jehoshaphat) walked in all the ways of Asa his father; he turned not aside from it, doing that which was right in the eyes of the LORD" - I kings 22:43

It is when one has that biblical "perfect will" of the heart and "complete desire" in his mind towards God that one has obtained perfect "security" in salvation with God. One's security is only as strong as one's love and will towards God. Any other doctrine is not biblical and is simply a false (eternal) security concept. Just as a relationship is based upon the lest heart compassion between two people (i.e. a love / like relationship becomes nothing more than a "like relationship" - not a mutual "love" relationship) it is the heart of man that will determine the relationship he and God will have.

Notice the eternal security principle in the following scripture: "Turn ye unto me, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will turn unto you, saith the LORD of hosts" - Zechariah 1:3 The principle here being, if one then turns away from God, then he also turns away from the eternal security he had with God. Only whole-heart repentance will return unto him eternal security, that being eternal security "in time". Every man will sin (Hebrew "chat" meaning "to miss the target") as I Kings 8:46 informs us, but the righteous will repeat - adjust, repair, and overcome - their sin (maintaining a perfect heart 'goal' towards God) while the ungodly will embrace their sins (because their love for sin is greater than their love for God) and be overcome by sin.

There is a predestination with the Jewish scriptures, however it has become an almost dirty word due to Calvinism's historical five-point (hyper) 'TULIP'1 abuse. The Calvinism doctrine mixes time and eternity in proclaiming that everything including the souls of man (and even babies that die as babies) are predetermined to salvation and damnation even though the Jewish scriptures state otherwise: "Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye." - Ezekiel 18: 31-32 (see also Deuteronomy 30:19)

Some Calvinist doctrines have it in their minds that warning of God's wrath to come upon the wicked soul is a waste of time since all souls are already predetermined and nothing can be changed anyway. This doctrine goes right against all that the Hebrew prophets taught and how they expressed their message:
"When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand." - Ezekiel 3:18

The nation of Israel is indeed predestination with an eternal predestination. Without fail God has promised literally to Himself (II Samuel 7:24) that Israel will be His chosen people forever. However, that eternal promise doesn't give every Jew of Israel a free pass to salvation. Only those who keep the commandments with a perfect heart can they be apart of Israel-redeemed.

It is God's word of promise for an eternal purpose is what is predestined. An individual's choice must become one with that eternal purpose in order to obtain that eternal life. But with eternal life come eternal perseverance. As with nature it is the sperm that perseveres unto the egg that obtains life, while all the others die - See Proverbs 18:10

I do believe all people has a certain spiritual genetic makeup as Jeremiah was called to be a spiritual prophet, even unto the nations before he was born (Jeremiah 1:5). However, every soul that comes into life has a duty to overcome sin by embracing God with a pure heart - see Genesis 4:7. The eternal element that causes some to love God with a deeper love more than others - as with the story of Cain and Abel - cannot be related in time. I do believe it relates back to the serpent (spiritual) seed mentioned in Genesis 3:15. However, God's eternal election can only be truly seen in the realm of eternal life where there is no beginning and no end, and where nothing is ever lost.

1. TULIP: an abbreviation standing for:
Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin - but can some how muster up enough of spiritual gumption to accept Jesus as his personal savior)
Unconditional Election (no inward calling or conviction needed)
Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)
Irresistible Grace (one can't resist God saving him)
Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Is Human Blood Kosher for Sin Atonement?

One of the three main reasons for my conversion to Judaism was over the human sacrifice of Christianity in [light] of the Jewish scriptures (the other two being vicarious-atonement and astrology veneration). Simply put, the Jewish scriptures utterly detest the worship of Jehovah God of Israel through the form of human sacrifice.
"...for every abomination to YHVH, which He hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods." - Deuteronomy 12:31 (see also Leviticus 18:21 / Leviticus 20:2-4)

"But they set their abominations in the house, which is called by My name, to defile it. And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin." - Jeremiah 32:34-35
Human sacrifice which was a common practice of worship among the Canaanites, caused the Jewish temple (a place for atonement) to be defiled. In order to convey just how bad the worship of other gods can be Deuteronomy states: "even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods". According to the prophet Jeremiah, YHVH wants Israel to know that human sacrifice is the furthermost concept from His method of thought - notice the words in red from the book of Jeremiah above.
The question then becomes why would YHVH-God of Israel who hates human sacrifices send Himself as one, for Himself to be accepted as an vicarious atonement? Notice the prophet Ezekiel's exact wording that would reflect upon vicarious atonement: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." - Ezekiel 18:20
This Hebrew scripture from the prophet Ezekiel is in direct conflict with the later New Testament teaching: "(Jesus) Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree..." -I Peter 2:24
Why would the God of Israel forbid the Jews for nearly two millenniums not to human sacrifice and punish them severely when they did, then turn right around and demand that Israel worship Himself as the very thing (a human sacrifice) that he was so against?
It seems that Christianity had a Gentile-based subconscious goal of retaining a form of pagan worship of human sacrifices while trying to connect with the God of Israel. In order to accomplish this they would make the animal sacrifices that was pleasing to God, only a type and a shadow (Hebrews 10:1) even though the Jewish scriptures never indicate in the slightest hint or suggestion that Israel's sacrificial system was only a type of a "human sacrifice" to come. In fact, according to the prophecy of the Hebrew scriptures, it is even after Meshiach (messiah) ben David has come that the animal sacrificial system is fully restored to the Jewish people. This prophesied return of the animal sacrificial system comes back on the world scene "after" the Jewish exiles (the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel) have been fully gathered from the corners of the earth back to their ancient homeland in Israel! See Ezekiel 37:24-28 and Ezekiel chapters 40-48.
In the Christian view Jesus' human sacrifice is a death-penalty sacrifice for all types of sin. However, there never was a death-penalty sacrifice within the Jewish scripture, just the death penalty period. There was no type or shadow animal requirement that the sinner could sacrifice under the death-penalty that he / she might be resolved from such sin. So the question then becomes, how is Jesus' human sacrifice a death-penalty antitype when there was no death-penalty type or shadow animal sacrifice to begin with that would allow him to become the antitype?
Christianity's "type and shadow" doctrine doesn't work with the Jewish scriptures when one considers that the blood sacrifice was only required for unintentional sins ( Leviticus 4:27-29 / Numbers15:27-28) and even then if one wishes to get down to the fine specifics of types and shadows, not every one could bring a "male lamb" as a sacrifice. A priest who sinned (by accident) was to bring a young bull - not a lamb (Lev. 4:3) the sin of the nation required a young bull - not a lamb ( Lev. 4:13) a ruler who sinned was required to bring a goat - not a lamb (Lev. 22-24) an average person in the community who sinned (by accident) was required to bring a "female" goat or a "female" lamb - not a "male" lamb (Lev. 4:27-28, 32) as the book of Saint John paints Jesus. So if we run the type and shadow doctrine to its full potential, the Christian human sacrifice (the antitype) was have to be a "spiritual bull" sacrifice, a spiritual goat sacrifice, and a spiritual she-lamb / she-goat, of whom could only forgive unintentional sins and not every type of sin.
The Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) once-a-year offering that Paul refers to in Hebrews 9:7 applied only to Israel as a community and not to the entire Gentile world. How then is Jesus' sacrifice the antitype to such a Israel-only sacrificial-type system (see St. John 1:29) especially when Paul negates Moses' command concerning this ritual to Israel: " And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year." - Leviticus 16:34.
As it turns out, even this holy Yom Kippur sacrifice didn't take away death-penalty sins. If it could have David who murdered Uriah the Hittite by proxy wouldn't have wrote of his blood-guilt the following: "Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God... for thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. - Psalms 51:14, 16-17. Under the Christian blood-sacrifice view David could have just waited until the next Yom Kippur offering to become guilt / sin-free. Killing a man because you got his wife pregant? No sweat, just keep it under the wraps until the next holiest day of the year, then your home free? - I think not. The sacrificial system was not a "out of jail free-card".
Since the Yom Kippur sacrifice was for Israel only are we to understand that according to the Christian view, all the souls of the Gentile world would have continued to be (since the very first Yom Kippur sacrifice) eternally damned if indeed the Jewish nation would have accepted their Christian messiah? Perhaps then, instead of the Church persecuting the Jewish nations for nearly two thousand years as "Christ-killers" they should have been bowing down in thankfulness to the Jews for getting their fellow-Gentile Romans to kill (sacrificed) Jesus?
Speaking of which, the Yom Kippur sacrifice was to be carried out by using animal blood sprinkled by the Jewish High Priest of Aaron's clan, on the only provided place - the temple's altar inside the city of Jerusalem. In contrast, the Christian atonement was carried out using human blood, shed by Gentile Roman soldiers, outside the city being nowhere near the only provided place -the temple's altar.1 With this in mind, it's easier to spiritually understand why the Christian atonement consisting of human sacrifice carried out by Gentile Romans, outside the Jewish spiritual headquarter, was predisposed to be the foundation of a Gentile religion called Christianity. Paul, being the foundation writer of the New Testament, changing his Jewish name of Saul to Gentile Paul only added to the inevitable.
Following the teaching of Gentile-named Paul (see Hebrews 9:22) the Christian proof-text of Leviticus 17:11 is used to falsely determine that blood was absolutely required for atonement. However, the context of Leviticus 17:10-12 is not at all addressing the issue of "atonement for sin". To suggest such becomes a pretext to hide the "real context" and message being conveyed of this section of Hebrew scripture!
Leviticus 17:10-12 is addressing the "prohibition of blood consumption" - period. There is a doctrinal revealing-reason why Christian apologists will NEVER quote verses 10 and 12 with Leviticus 17:11.2 To do so would yank the carpet out from under their proof-text. The context of all three verses would be too revealing, therefore the context is purposely hidden by quoting only verse 11 by itself.
The text of Leviticus 17:10-12 is stating the following:
"And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood [subject of context] I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood [subject of context] and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul [not the bones or the meat of the animal that the priest can eat but the blood that no man can consume because the blood is for an atonement]. Therefore [this word "therefore" - "Kee" in the Hebrew, connects the previous two verses with the following statement staying inline with the context] I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood [subject of context], neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood [subject of entire context]."

Note: What Leviticus 17:10-12 is NOT saying in contrast to Hebrew 9:22 is, that "blood" is absolutely required before atonement for the soul can be made. If this was what was being conveyed, it would be a direct contradiction to Leviticus 5:11 and David who could not sacrifice for his sin (see Psalms 51:16) in his murdering of Uriah and he would be without any atonement for mercy.
Taking into consideration the Torah's explicit and strict prohibition of blood consumption, doesn't Jesus' words, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" sound a little anti-Torah? especially since blood consumption was forbidden long before the Law of Moses was given to the Jewish nation (see Genesis 9:4) not to mention the fact that human consumption of human blood was very much an antiquity pagan practice. Yet the New Testament records no one questioning as to why YHVH of the Torah who was so anti-consumption of blood in giving Moses His laws, would be just the opposite - being very pro-blood consumption - in using spiritual analogies?
There are plenty of situations where non-blood atonement was made in the pre-Jesus Hebrew Bible. When Paul states in Hebrews 9:22 "
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood" can be taken that not all things in the Law of Moses are purged by blood especially when it comes to atonement for the souls.
  • Leviticus 5:11 "But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering." This was a non-blood sacrifice that allowed the very poor to offer a sin-offering. Note, if it was blood that was absolutely required for sin and God is no respecter of persons, how then did the very poor get off without typing Jesus with a blood sacrifice of sin? I have yet to get a clear-cut answer from a Christian apologist.
  • Numbers 31:50 "We have therefore brought an oblation for the LORD, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets, to make an atonement for our souls before the LORD." Gold is not blood, yet gold was used in this one incident for the Israeli army to make an atonement for their souls. This is along the same line as the charity-atonement. "To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice." - Proverbs 21:3
  • Numbers 16:46 "And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on incense, and go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them: for there is wrath gone out from the LORD; the plague is begun." Here incense (not blood) on the altar was used for what the Bible calls an "atonement".
  • II Samuel 12:13 "And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die." As Psalms 51:16-17 indicates David did not have to blood-sacrifice in order to get his sins removed, in fact a "Song of David" states in the psalms "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us ." (Psalms 103:12)
  • I Kings 8:44-50 Solomon's temple prayer-prophecy that was purposely placed in holy script, allowed the Jews in exile (far away from the temple place of blood atonement) to pray towards Jerusalem and the temple when repenting of sins that God would forgive, "all their transgressions wherein they have transgressed against"God.
  • Jonah 3:5-10 The people of Nineveh repeated at the words of Jonah and the Bible goes as far as telling us of their reactions of repentance. They covered themselves in sackcloth and sat in ashes and the king even proclaimed a fast. But in all of their expression of repentance guess what was missing in their very deep and sincere outward expression of repentance? - BLOOD! The Bible tells us that God saw their (non-blood) works of repentance and turned his anger from them. The question then becomes, "why would a blood-demanding God turn His anger from them without them blood sacrificing? Notice how this scripture in Jonah correlates in principle with I Kings 8:44-50 above.
  • Daniel 9:3-19 The Prophet Daniel confessed Israel's sins while in Babylon and asked God to forgive their sins without ever offering any blood sacrifices to God.
  • The Prophet Hosea prophesied that for "many days" the children of Israel would be without the sacrificial system (Hosea 3:4) pressed Israel to approach God with words (not animal blood) asking God to forgive their sins, and that bulls (for sacrifice) be traded for prayer-confession of the lips! (Hosea 14:1-2) Of this, the prophet Hosea noted that mercy and the knowledge of God is greater in God's eyes than any blood sacrifice offered to Him (Hosea 6:6)!
  • For 70 years the Jewish people were in Babylon where they could not blood-sacrifice at the temple mount in Jerusalem (Jeremiah 25:11-12). Using the actions and prophesies of King Solomon, Prophet Hosea, and Prophet Daniel (listed above) it becomes evident that the entire generation of Jewish people that included the prophet Daniel and the prophet Ezekiel living in Babylon and the prophet Jeremiah living in Egypt, was not without the possibility of having their sins forgiven and atoned for. Not only that particular 70 year Jewish generation but considering the generations that followed that stayed in Babylon and in Egypt for 500 plus years before Jesus' time (St. John 7:35) also was not without a way to have their sins forgiven and atoned for according to Hosea's "many days" prophecy (Hosea3:4 / 14:1-2). Are we to understand that because a Jew was living in exile away from Jerusalem and the temple that he was just out of luck, and would go to hell because he wasn't able to rid his sins by blood-sacrificing an animal as sin-offering in Jerusalem? Of course not!
For Paul or anyone else to suggest that it was or took literal blood that made the atonement possible is dead wrong! Any and all sacrifices (including the blood ones) were only as good as the human heart that brought it (Proverbs 21:27 /Isaiah 1:11-15 / Micah 6:7-8)! Regardless of how bloody the sacrifice was it could be rendered null and void if the human heart was not pure in bringing the sacrifice before the Lord, which is the basis behind any and all sacrifices, not the blood itself!
This reality is not what is conveyed in Hebrews 9:22, just the opposite is! Christian apologists will give lip-service to the "Proverbs 21:27 Jewish Bible reality" but continue in the mindset and concept of Hebrews 9:22 that it was the "literal blood" and only the "literal blood" that atones and allows forgiveness of sins. By doing this they place the state of the human-heart and mind towards God (what should be first and foremost) as only "secondary" to the "literal blood" of the sacrifice!
The fact remains that no Jewish scripture even comes close to indicating a human sacrifice of the coming end-of-days messiah. That theology has to be read into the text using pagan mythology as a guide. Osiris-Dionysus was a mythical god that died and rose on the third day after which a ritual celebration meal of bread and wine symbolized his body and blood.3
The "Price" Factor and the True Meaning of the Word "Atonement":
Because the New Testament doctrine involves a vicarious atonement through human sacrifice (Hebrews 9:28) the very meaning of "atonement" and "price" seem to merge in the Christian view. The Hebrew word "Kafar" as in "Yom Kipper" (Day of Atonement) means "to atone". Like the the definition in English it means "to reconcile" and to make amends through reparation. What it doesn't mean is "to pay an owed price" or "payment". Likewise the Hebrew word for "repentance" (teshuvah) comes from the root word "shuv" meaning "to return" and not "to pay for something owed"! Both "atonement" and "repentance" in the Hebrew Bible has to do with reconciling and returning to God and not paying some sort of debt prices in order to obtain favor with God!
The sacrificial system of the Hebrew Bible was a method of showing God ones earnest devotion in repentance, thankfulness, and praise (blessing towards God by an offering) and not a method by which to pay God an owed debt. The Hebrew Bible never indicates that the sin offerings were a debt payment but rather a way to express a reconciling with God. The view that the sacrificial system was a price-debt payment for ones sins was created to coincide with the "types and shadows of sacrifices" doctrine of the New Testament, something also foreign to the Hebrew Bible.
The Christian "price-required" view of the Law of Moses has helped in giving the Hebrew Bible a bad "justice with no mercy" rap in their own minds. The question I like to ask is, if your spouse or child offends or angers you, do you demand a "price" to be paid before your fellowship with that spouse or child can be returned back to normal? or do you simply demand a change in their behavior that caused their offense in the first place, allowing their natural love for you cause them to be repentant of their offense? When we read God's most famous call to repentance within the Hebrew Bible we see no demand for a "price" to be paid in order for Israel (God's bride / son) to obtain a restored fellowship with God:
"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." - II Chronicles 7:14
There are several scriptures within the pre-Jesus Hebrew Bible that should help those who have trouble getting passed the "price-blood required-atonement" issue that comes with the standard Christian view. But one must be willing to accept what the Hebrew Bible states on its own revealed word of God foundation without first running it through a New Testament filter for an interpretation.
" Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required." - Palms 40:6
"For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." - Psalms 51:16-17
"To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats." - Isaiah 1:11
"Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God" - Micah 6:7-8
"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." - Hosea 6:6
" To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice." - Proverbs 21:3
One must wonder that if Jehovah God of the Hebrew Bible was so dead-set on blood-sacrifices (pun not intended) first and foremost, why would such scriptures above appear even in the slightest of fashions that would indicate that there is something more meaningful to God of the Hebrew Bible than blood sacrifices in how man fellowships with Him and is reconciled to Him after sin?4
One Final Note:
Referring to the New Covenant found in Jeremiah 31:31-36, the New Testament states, "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." (Hebrews 10:16-18) However, the prophet Ezekiel has a different view. In his future vision of the temple, "sin offerings" are very present (Ezekiel 40:39 / 42:13 / 43:22 / 45:19-20).
The same prophet Ezekiel scriptures that tell us of the "physical" return of the children of Israel back into the "physical" land of their "physical" forefathers are the same scriptures that tell us of the "physical" return of the Jewish temple (Ezekiel 37:21-28). And that "physical temple" is detailed extensively in chapters 40 through 48 of the same book. The covenant along with the temple are to be restored among the people of Israel at the "End of days". The question then becomes, why doesn't the Gentile-named Paul agree with Jewish named Ezekiel pertaining to the restoration and presence of sin-offerings during the Messianic Age or anytime after Jesus' time?
Received e-mail - May 30, 2009
I just glanced through your post on the blood atonement and the following paragraph stood out to me:

"This reality is not what is conveyed in Hebrews 9:22, just the opposite is! Christian apologists will give lip-service to the "Proverbs 21:27 Jewish Bible reality" but continue in the mindset and concept of Hebrews 9:22 that it was the "literal blood" and only the "literal blood" that atones and allows forgiveness of sins. By doing this they place the state of the human-heart and mind towards God (what should be first and foremost) as only "secondary" to the "literal blood" of the sacrifice!"

Before I forgot I wanted to chime in: Christians don't treat the heart and mind towards God as secondary. It is central to man's salvation. A quick reference on this is Romans 10:9-10. I don't have time to read your whole post right now or even offer any more details beyond what I've given you. But I at least wanted to pass this one before I forgot. Maybe you should take that statement out of your post or at least reword it.

My response: May 31, 2009
"Actually, your NT scripture reference proves my point. According to that scripture, before one can believe Jesus rose from the dead that he / she might be saved as Romans 10:9-10 states, one must "FIRST" believe he shed his blood and that his blood is the only source and price for sin remission. I'm sure you don't think that if Jesus died of a heart attack without shedding his blood and then rose from the dead, Romans 10:9-10 would still be in effect?
One must ask, if the heart and mind are pure before God was the "primary goal" of the Christian believer, why is there a need for Christian Communion? The fact is the Christian Communion is a symbolic ritual patterned after the Hebrew sacrificial system. Not only was it to be done often, but one was considered guilty of the body and "blood" of Jesus if participating in it unworthily (I Corinthians 11: 27).
To the Christians, it is unquestionable that a pure heart and mind can only be obtained through the Christian blood covenant first and foremost. My post comment not only reflects many, many books of Christian commentary on the "Blood Covenant" but the mindset of Hebrews 9:22 itself.
The only difference between Christianity and Judaism in obtaining a pure heart and mind before God is that one believes there must first (primarily) be blood present, and as you'll see in my post, the other one doesn't."
- Joe
1. There are two New Testament verses that makes an attempt to spiritualize and explain away why Jesus was "sacrificed" outside the provided place for sacrificial atonement.
Hebrews 9:24 "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us".
Paul wants to downplay the temple because it was constructed by human hands even though the tabernacle and temple was commissioned by God Himself (Exodus 25:8 / I Kings 9:3) and was the very place unto which exiled Jews would pray towards when repenting to God of their sins (I Kings 8:44-50) and of which God Himself calls "My temple" (Zechariah 1:16). Also, Jesus' body has more of a human connection to it (besides being human "son of man" itself) coming through Human-sinful Mary than does the commissioned holy temple. Perhaps seeing this became the foundational reason why the Catholic Church wants to venerate Mary as being sinless and co-redeemer.

Hebrews 13:11-12 "For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate".
First of all, the sacrificial animals didn't "suffered" outside the gate as Paul suggested Jesus' suffering types, for they had already been slaughtered "within" the gate that their blood might be used in the temple (within the gate) on the altar. It would be impossible to "suffer outside the gate" being brought outside the gate already slaughtered and dead. What we see here is a "stretch" by the book of Hebrews to make an allegory that really doesn't match quite well while at the same time trying to explain away a fundamental reality concerning the only established place for sacrifice.
Secondly, according to Jewish kosher slaughter rituals (see Deuteronomy 12:21) the animal being slaughtered was not to "suffer" or as little as possible from the ordeal.>
http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Shechitah Jewish animal sacrifice was certainly not for the purpose to cause the animal to suffer as much as possible as compared to the Roman method of crucifixion which indeed was designed to cause as much human suffering as possible. In either aspect, how could Jesus' suffering outside the temple be spiritually typed with the animals sacrificed within the temple as Paul conveys?
2. Taking a single text outside its context is a common technique used by Christian apologists. For example, like Leviticus 17:11, Isaiah 7:14 is "always" quoted by itself among Christians. To add the next two verses (15 and 16) to the context would challenge the Christian viewpoint by its obvious historical setting and placement within the time of Isaiah.
3. "Twenty-Six Reasons Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus" by Asher Norman, page 197, "Israel and the Endtimes" by Professor Eugene Narrett, page xii of introduction.
4. One has to wonder how Jesus as "the son of man" forgave sins [before] the blood-required antitype Calvary-atonement was made? After all, all sin in the Christian view required "blood"?
See Matthew 9:2-5 / Luke 7:47 compared with Hebrews 9:22.
Concerning such a Christian response as "Jesus was God, therefore he could forgive sins" then such a one must be reminded that it was the same "God" that "required blood" all through the "Old Testament" and required His son's blood (Jesus) in the New Testament, according to Christian doctrine. Therefore, again, how did Jesus forgive sins between the time of animal blood-sacrifices and Jesus' blood sacrifice, when it took blood (Roman 9:22) to forgive sins?