Jasho-
>Actually, the statement in Hebrews 9:22 is true:
>
> NIV -- In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed
> with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
>
> RSV -- Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood,
> and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
>
> KJV -- And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and
> without shedding of blood is no remission.
>
>Note the qualification "nearly everything," "almost everything," or "almost
>all things." (I checked multiple versions to make sure that the
>qualification is not a paraphrase peculiar to one translation). The writer
>of Hebrews asserts that almost all things are purified by blood, not that
>everything is purified by blood, and being a Jew writing to a Jewish
>audience, it's not very likely that he would imply that there were no
>exceptions to blood purification in the OT.
yoel-
PAUL'S insistence on blood (and his attempt to base it on the Levitical rites)-
"There is NO FORGIVENESS"
LEVITICUS' sacrifice of flour-
"HE WILL BE FORGIVEN"
No. "Nearly everything" makes no difference, actually, it means that there
is somewhat of an internal contradiction in Hebrews 9:22 as well as a
contradiction with Leviticus. It also make Paul highly suspect, if not of
deliberate deception, then of scientific ignorance.
Paul, in attempting to equate the Jesus/sacrifice myth with the Jewish
temple system, and in order to show how Jesus "fulfilled" the sacrificial
temple system said:
"In fact, the Law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood,
AND WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO FORGIVENESS."
Well, the "nearly everything" merely proves my point. And we can look at
the exceptions ourselves. That the shedding of blood is NOT necessary for
the remission of sins. It is NOT. All it takes is one exception, just one
(and there are more than just one) to disprove the generalisation that
"without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins".
If there was forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood, then it
does not matter what Paul says, he cannot base his premise "without the
shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" on the preexisting
Jewish Temple religion, because in that religion, which he claims that the
blood sacrifice of his guru fulfils its need for blood, there WAS
forgiveness without sacrifice.
An analogy-
1) Let's say that American Law states that most people live in red houses,
and it lists laws for people living in red houses, but it also states that
some people can live in blue houses or green houses, and lists laws and
regulations for people living in those types of houses.
2. In fact, the American Law states, that the divine Uncle Sam and the
ghosts of all the forfathers are not that pleased with red houses, that red
houses make no difference, they would rather have mercy than red houses.
2000 years later, Joe Redhouse is born in a red house, claiming that he is
the fulfillment of the red houses which were required by the ancient
Americans for the forgiveness of sins. He also preaches that all humanity
should paint themselves red in order to avoid eternal torment from loving
Uncle Sam. His aposle, whose name is, uh, Paul, in attempting to "prove"
that his RED theory is based on ancient American Law and is the fulfillment
of the supposed RED requirement, states states:
"In fact, the American Law requires that nearly every house be painted red,
AND WITHOUT Red Houses there is no fullfilment of law."
Well, it just so happens that, in the Old Covenant of American Law, which
followers of Joe have attached to their New Covenant, and which the
decendents of the ancient Americans have as their ONLY covenant, lists that
there were laws governing green houses, blue houses, yellow houses... Laws
that show that these were perfectly good houses to live in, perfectly
acceptable by law. The Old Covenant also lists that Red Houses really are
not that important, that what was more acceptable was mercy, justice, etc.
So, it is obvious, except to those followers of Joe who have been blinded
by "faith", that, not only does the doctrine of Joe that "Red houses have
always been necessary" contradict ancient American Law, but also that the
following statement of Paul:
"In fact, the American Law requires that nearly every house be painted red,
AND WITHOUT Red Houses there is no fullfilment of law."
has an internal inconsistency, since he cannot draw his conclusion from his
premise. The "nearly every house" is not ""every house"., and since we have
in the Old Coveneant, the exceptions listed, you cannot, from the first
part of the statement draw the conclusion ""without Red Houses there is no
fulfilment of law".
1. There were laws which claimed that there is fulfillment without red
2. Red is and was not necessary
"nearly all" is not all. To me, Paul's inclusion of this disclaimer shows
how deceptive he was. He KNEW that he might be called to task, so he
inserted this disclaimer, but then proceeded to draw the incorrect
conclusion anyway.
Nearly all people have hair
>From this observation, you cannot draw the conclusion that there cannot be
humans without hair.
The statement is illogical and contradictory, should an exception be found.
Once one bald person is found, the conclusions: "there cannot be humans
without hair" is incorrect.
Not only does it fly in face of the facts, but
It is not a logical conclusion to draw from the premise, since "nearly all"
is not all, and since the inclusion of "nearly all" and the fact that the
person who wrote the statement lives on earth seems to show that the person
writing the statement was familiar with the phenomonon of baldness. So, he
had no reason to draw the conclusion "there cannot be humans without hair."
TRUE, most humans have hair. But not all of them. And they are sitll very
very human.
In the instance of Paul's statement that:
"Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and
without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins."
is incorrect.
First, in Leviticus 5:11-13 we see the following:
If, however he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring
as an offering for his sin an epah of FLOUR for a sin offering. He must not
put oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. He is to bring it
to the priest, who shall take a handful of it as a memorial portion and
burn it on the altar on top off the offerings made to the Lord by fire. It
is a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for him for
any of the sins he has committed, and HE WILL BE FORGIVEN."
So, it does not matter what Paul says, he can babble as long as he wants to,
1. There was no shedding of blood
2. There was remission of sins
Therefore, Paul's statement:
"and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins."
Is incorrect. Just look up there! Right up ther!!!
again,
1. There was no shedding of blood
2. There WAS remission of sins
It doesn't matter that Paul qualified his statement with :"Indeed, under
the law almost everything is purified with blood,", his coclusion "without
the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" is incorrect. It can
ONLY be correct, in light of:
Leviticus 5:11-13:
If, however he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring
as an offering for his sin an epah of FLOUR for a sin offering. He must not
put oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. He is to bring it
to the priest, who shall take a handful of it as a memorial portion and
burn it on the altar on top off the offerings made to the Lord by fire. It
is a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for him for
any of the sins he has committed, and HE WILL BE FORGIVEN."
In fact, Paul's inclusion of "Indeed, under the law almost everything is
purified with blood,", shows that he was well aware of the exception and
was trying to pull a fast one when he then concluded "and without the
shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" is incorrect.
Again:
1. There WAS NO SHEDDING OF BLOOD
2. There WAS FORGIVENESS OF SINS
The statement "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" is wrong.
The second part of the argument was that the Old Testament showed God'd
displeasure with sacrifice. That sacrifice is not the "end all" with God.
There are things more important than sacrifice:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire...burnt offerings and sin
offerings you did not require" (Ps 40:6)
"For you do not desire sacrifice" (Psalm 51:16)
"To do what is right and just is more acceptable to YHWH than sacrifice"
(Pr 21:3)
"I desire mercy, not sacrifice" (Hos 6:6)
Anyone who has not sold his conscience to your religion's insistence on
blind faith will see that my argument is based on the facts that existed in
Paul's day. That the Christian argument from its inception was based on a
fallacy, a purposeful distorting of what Judaism and the Jewish scriptures
said. You, who probably claim to be "born again": and that "God's spirit"
lives in you, you, who now have a personal interest in preserving the
integrity of your chosen book, and will force yourself to be blinded by
what is obvious.
No blood was necessary.
PAUL (attempting to base Christian dogma on the Jewish scriptures)-
"Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and
without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins."
THE JEWISH SCRIPTURES-
If, however he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring
as an offering for his sin an epah of FLOUR for a sin offering. He must not
put oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. He is to bring it
to the priest, who shall take a handful of it as a memorial portion and
burn it on the altar on top off the offerings made to the Lord by fire. It
is a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for him for
any of the sins he has committed, and HE WILL BE FORGIVEN."
PAUL'S insistence on blood-
"There is NO FORGIVENESS"
LEVITICUS' sacrifice of flour-
"HE WILL BE FORGIVEN"