The Perushim (Pharisees) Are Lying About Atonement By The Blood...Noahide error

https://billrandles.wordpress.com/2020/10/16/how-the-rabbis-lie-about-atonement-noahide-law/ ^ | 10-16-20 | Bill Randles

[Phinneous]

Actually, Yehoshua (Joshua) did that.

[Zionist Conspirator]

But the Christian teaching on atonement is rooted in the Torah itself, in Genesis,Exodus and Leviticus, all of which teach atonement by blood.

This is the same nonsense that chrstianity has been spewing for two millennia.

Please note that Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus do not authorize chrstianity. They authorize only their own commandments. The OP simply cannot get over this groundless assumption that the NT is the "fulfillment" of the "OT" and has the authority to definitively interpret it. This is a logical fallacy known as affirmation of the consequent, meaning the debater "proves" his thesis by simply assuming it is true from the get-go.

Some facts:

The Torah does not say "without blood there is no forgiveness of sin." That's from the epistle to the Hebrews, which most evangelical types conveniently forget isn't accepted by Jews or Noachides. Chrstianity must be proven from the Hebrew Bible which is impossible because the Hebrew Bible says nothing about chrstianity (except maybe in Deuteronomy 13 when it warns to reject any miracle or "fulfilled prophecy" which supposedly proves that the Torah is no longer in force). What the Torah says, and what chrstians misquote, is that it is forbidden to eat blood, because when one offers a sacrifice it is the blood which is the specific part of the sacrifice which makes the atonement. These are two entirely separate statements.

The ancient Israelites did not offer blood sacrifices every day. In addition to the seventy year Babylonian exile and other times when the Ark was temporarily stolen, during the forty years in the wilderness the Israelites only offered sacrifices at those places where they settled down for a time (they camped at Qadesh-Barne`a for 38 1/2 years). Whenever the tabernacle was disassembled and in transit no sacrifices were offered.

The actual chata't sacrifice itself, which is the actual sin-offering, only atones for sins that were committed inadvertently. They are completely useless at atoning for intentional sins.

And despite the dishonest attempt to make it appear that Torah Jews want chrstians or any other non-Jews to convert to Judaism, what non-Jews are permitted to observe and study is limited. The observance of Shabbat and holidays, as well as the use of ritual objects like tefillin, tallitot, and mezuzot are strictly forbidden.

And finally, what the OP and others like him simply refuse to consider is that the sacrificial service is for Jews only. Non-Jews are permitted, but not commanded, to offer the `olah (the whole burnt ascension offering). For non-Jews the only way to be forgiven of sins is to repent. At no time in all history has more than this been required of non-Jews.

Honestly, it's like trying to reason with a piece of wood.

[Faith Presses On]

Yes, Yehoshua did, but remember, Yeshua is just the shortened form of Yehoshua.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua

[Phinneous]

Not your best argument. Two different people.

[Songcraft]

* bump *

[Just mythoughts]

First prophecy Genesis 3:15 is the foundation of Christianity. The heel was bruised, but the Serpent has yet to receive his judgment.

[Cronos]

well written - and note that the Muslims take this pharisee “oh, sacrifice is not about atonement’ and built it into Bakri Eid

[Cronos]

The term "pharisee" is used as that is the best way to

That is the best way to describe what is incorrectly just called "Judaism" today

in reality, "Judaism" includes both the sects

1. Pharisee-derived Judaism (called "Judaism")
2. Jesus-movement Judaism (called "Christianity")

These are the only two Jewish sects that survived.

with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD the Pharisees reinvented themselves by replacing the temple sacrifices and the Christians already before the destruction by saying that Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice so negating the needs for sacrifices at the temple and negating the need for a physical temple

=================

"pharisee" due to the negative contexts in the Gospels and epistles can be taken as a pejorative in the Christian context, while in terms of the Talmud can be taken as opposite. I use it as a defining term for modern day Pharisee-Judaism vs Jesus-movement-judaism

[Cronos]

Chronos brought up my clay vase analogy to refute the Talmud (as I refuse the NT.) Incorrect. To paraphrase you ‘scripture’ The rabbis sit in the seat of Moses. JC understood the oral law better than you and you don’t recognize it (or thwart it) in your own scripture. The Talmud is the extention of the Oral Law (given at Sinai and replete throughout the Jewish Bible. It does not contradict G-d or the Torah though you’ll try to pull out of context evidence to the contrary. Your Aramaic is as non-existwnt as your Hebrew.

Firstly - your clay vase analogy was

Imagine a perfect vase or clay vessel. You don’t understand its depth and beauty but its guardians tell you the Creator of the World gave it to us.

You think you’ll make a few renovations and lump your clay right on top of it.

to which I replied

Pharisee-derived-Judaism dates to 70 AD and the recreation under Rabbi Ben Zakkai.

Pharisee Judaism as read in the Talmud negates the omnipotence of God, binding Him. That's why the Sadducees rejected what the Pharisees preached. That's also why the Samaritans - a first temple Israelite sect, rejected what the Pharisee-Jews taught.

So before accusing others of "adding on the perfect vessel", I'd suggest taking a look at the numerous additions as read in the Talmud

The rabbis may in your belief system "sit in the seat of Moses" and yes, for your own belief system, they may put in the Oral Torah - that is rabbinical/Pharisee Judaism's prerogative. However, that IS adding on to the basic "clay vase" of the Torah, just as much as you stating that the New Testament is an adding on the basic "clay vase" of the Torah.

[Cronos]

I am glad for the conversation as it shakes Christians to their core and gives them the chance to return to the one true G-d of Israel and abandon man-god idol worship.

Actually it goes the other way - we do see that the Pharisee-derived Jews rejected the one true G-d of Israel and stuck to their man-made "Oral Torah" as we have

[5] He therefore who giveth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you; doth he do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of the faith?

[10] For as many as are of the works of the law, are under a curse. For it is written: Cursed is every one, that abideth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law to do them.

...[18] For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise. But God gave it to Abraham by promise. [19] Why then was the law? It was set because of transgressions, until the seed should come, to whom he made the promise, being ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. [20] Now a mediator is not of one: but God is one.

We would point out that you hold to a lot of additions to the basic Torah - you have the Oral Torah, the detailed Talmud.

[Cronos]

I will also point out that the Pharisee-Jewish beliefs are filled with "add-ons" that are rejected by other Israelite sects

Let's take the oldest - the Samaritans. They have the Samaritan Torah - the Pentateuch and that is their SOLE scripture - they state that you, we, have added on to the Torah.

And in terms of just "adding on" - you, the pharisee-jews and we, the jesus-movement-jews HAVE taken the Prophets and the Oral Torah / NT respectively on top of the Torah

Next, the Sadducees were appalled by the Pharisees and the invention of the Oral Torah in the post Babylon exile.

So, accusing Christians of "adding on" when you have added on the Prophets and then the Oral Torah and now pretty much the Talmud, well, that is hypocritical

[Cronos]

CC Deny Christ at your peril.

that's hardly an initiative to get people to listen to a Christian point of view - just fear and fear of something that to them doesn't exist

To a Pharisee-Jew or a Hindu, saying "fear the fires of hell" is nonsensical as they don't believe in that

If someone is brought up with the Oral Torah and even more so the Talmud, which says that Jesus is, well let's read what the Talmudic Jewish scholars in 200 AD wrote about Jesus

Onkelos the son of Klonimus..desired to convert himself (to Judaism)..he brought Yeshu (forth by means of/in) Séance..(Onkelos queried to Yeshu) whom is of importance in that world? He (Yeshu) answered him; Yisroel (the children of Israel). (Onkelos further queried) what/how (do you advise) to cleave to them? He (Yeshu) answered; "their benefit (lit. goodness) seek, their harm (lit. evil) do not seek (as) all/whomever touches them (with intent to harm) is as if (he) is touching the pupil of his (god's) eye". He (Onkelos) said to him (to Yeshu); the judgement of that man[7] is how/what? he (Yeshu) said to him (to Onkelos) "in excrement (that is) boiling".

So imagine yourself like EinNYC and Phinneous - who seem like they truly are believing Pharisee-Jews, truly believe their faith, have learnt it in depth and learnt about it. They have heard that Jesus was not the Messiah and heard the arguments from the Jewish texts that we Christians haven't heard of

If you wish to explain your point of view, you can't bring up something that doesn't exist in their system of belief

It would be similar to someone coming to you and saying that if you don't follow the laws of Manusmriti, then you will be reincarnated as a Shudra - none of that makes sense to you and even if it DOES makes sense, you don't believe that

[Cronos]

Panie Janie, I disagree with you.

Firstly, "the Jews" -- you're using a blanket term for now and then. In the 1st century, Jesus and ALL His disciples were 2nd temple Jews. He started His sect of 2nd temple Judaism and was in contention with the Pharisee Jews.

But Jesus came in to Jerusalem and was widely acclaimed. May believed - and these were "Jews". This continued even through the GREAT TRIBULATION (from about 64 Ad to 67 AD) when the Pharisees, the Sadducees AND the Roman authorities all turned on this Jesus-movement-Jewish sect.

A large chunk of "Jews" accepted their Messiah. Some didn't - and they were the Pharisee-Jews. These reinvented their religion in 70 AD, even editing out the texts that the Jesus-movement-Jews used as proof.

Hosea 1:10 talks about the gentiles grafted ON

The entire book of Genesis reads as

1. A family - Adam's, then expanding, but falling away from God until the flood
2. Then Noah again, a family, but falling away from God until Abraham
3. A family again - Abraham, then Isaac, then Jacob
4. Then a clan
5. Then a tribe
6. then a nation
7. The nation fails and part of it falls
8. But then the nation expands - as Daniel saw, a mountain then covers the earth

Christianity is Jesus-movement-Judaism, as "salvation comes (or rather came) from the Jews" -- the story of salvation spread to the entire world through Jesus

Jesus clearly states that God is One, and that He and God are One

He clearly in His parables talks about How the chosen people rejected Him over and over and that this is now a wider plan of salvation

Ezekiel 20: 34And I will bring you out from the people, and I will gather you out of the countries, in which you are scattered, I will reign over you with a strong hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out was written just before the exile to bAbylon

It talks about the gathering back AFTER the babylonian exile

The Zechariah 14 destruction of Jerusalem is seen in

THIS was the destruction that Zechariah wrote about

And many 2nd temple Jews called upon Yeshua and they were delivered

The Jesus-movement-Jewish sect was still heavily dominated by ethnic Jews

[Cronos]

phinneous but the Jews have had the answers forever.

With due respect, Phinneous - these are "Pharisee derived Jews" to be precise and also "the answers forever" are "the answers by looking at our texts alone" -- the council of Jamnia in 70 AD rejected the Septuagint even though that was the primary text of 2nd temple Judaism, precisely because the Jesus-movement Jews were using it to get people to their sect rather than the Pharisee sect

So no, you haven't "had the answers forever"

That reminds me of a discussion I had with a believing Hanafi school Sunni Muslim who said that exact same phrase "The Muslims have had the answers forever" - and then he went on to tell me what Muslims think Christians believe (they had a nice little booklet in Arabic with Urdu and English translation saying "Christians believe in 3 gods: God, Jesus and Mary" and then quotes from Isa in the Quran - btw. this "Isa" bloke in the Quran is purportedly Jesus but says and does things not in the gospels!)

Anyway, so you have your perception of what we believe (and no doubt it is the other way as well) - but you don't "have the answers forever" - or else the argument would have been over

and "the Old Thing" -- well the OT is not necessarily "the ONLY Real thing"

[Cronos]

Faith From what I read, Jews just completely stay away from the New Testament and would be hard-pressed to even say who Joseph and Mary are

Well, yeah, of course. Why should Pharisee-Jews read about a competing religious view?

They have a lot of their own scripture to read - have you picked up a Talmud lately? Man, with the side inscriptions and the back and forth between sages who lived thousands of miles and hundreds of years apart talking about minutae, it is mind-boggling.

Most Christians don't pick up the Talmud, or the Avestan or the Quran or the Gita - why should the average bloke do that?

[Cronos]

note that Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus do not authorize Pharisee-Judaism either. They don't authorize anything except what the Samaritans believe as only they hold to the Torah ALONE (Sola Toraha :-)

[Zionist Conspirator]

note that Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus do not authorize Pharisee-Judaism either. They don't authorize anything except what the Samaritans believe as only they hold to the Torah ALONE (Sola Toraha :-)

More proof that Catholics become Protestants when they attack Judaism.

And btw, the Jewish and Samaritan Torahs are not identical.

[Cronos]

Nah, you’re not even answering as the Pharisee-Judaism lite, namely Noachidism you follow doesn’t stand up yo scrutiny.

Do you even know the differences between the Samaritans Torah and the Jewish? And why has the Jewish canon added to the Torah with the Oral Torah? And why do you refer to the Talmud and Chalasha?