Jesus Was Not A Sacrifice To Forgive Sins

So who do you say the suffering one in Isaiah 53 is in history and how specifically does any OT figure fit the description?This message has been edited by buzsaw, 08-27-2004 09:28 PM

PD, I'm afraid you're showing gross ignorance of Biblical doctrine and understanding.How in the world can you identify Israel with the following in Isa. 53?
1. ....a MAN of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and a one from whom men hide their face.....
2. ......HE WAS WOUNDED FOR OUR TRANGRESSIONS {sins) HE WAS BRUISED FOR OUR INIQUITIES; ........WITH HIS STRIPES WE ARE HEALED
3. Jehovah has LAID ON HIM THE INIQUITY OF US ALL.....
4. When he was aflicted HE OPENED NOT HIS MOUTH as the lamb that iis led to the slaughter and as a sheep that before his shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.....
5. He was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people.. ( one dies for the sins of the people -- hardly a nation dying for itself)
6. .....you shall make his soul as an offering for sin.....
5. HE BORE THE SIN OF MANY AND MADE INTERCESSION FOR THE TRANSGRESSORS (sinners)Now, PD, please be honest and tell whether this more closely typlifies the suffering Jesus NT account or historical Israel? May I suggest you reread the gospel accounts of the suffering saviour if you're not that familiar. Your lack of understanding suggests you need to do this.

And there's this in Psalms 22: 16-18: cf Matt. 27:46; Mk. 15:34; II Cor. 5:21; Matt. 27:35-39, 43; Mk. 15:29; Jn. 19:23-28;

1. Please document that the yearly sacrifice and sprinkling of the blood on the mercy seat of the Holy of Holies in the temple was only for unintentional sins??2. Even if, I say if, those required yearly sacrifices were for intentional sins, aren't you thereby admitting that in both the OT and NT God required sacrificial atonement for sins? The Bible, both OT and NT teach that all humans have sinned.

The above words in verse one are the very words of Jesus on the cross!! Ok, jar all the verses but the above ones can apply to either Job and Jesus. You still have the problem of these verses, so you are the one who's argument must remove something from context, for these verses of Psalms 22 cannot apply to Job while all the verses of Psalms 22 are good with Jesus.And while we're at it, I'll ask you the same of Isaiah 53 that I asked PD. Which do those texts best typlify, something historical or the crucifixion of Jesus?This message has been edited by buzsaw, 08-27-2004 10:39 PM

Uh Uh, PD, wrong text and wrong sacrifice. This in Lev. 4 only pertained to unintentional sins, but you must go to Leviticus 16 for the biggy, i.e. the Day of Atonement sacrifice for ALL THE SINS OF THE PEOPLE in which the high priest is to go ONLY ONCE A YEAR INTO THE HOLY OF HOLIES OF THE TEMPLE and sprinkle the blood on the mercy seat. This is the only time anyone including the high priest was to go into that holy compartment of the temple during the whole year.1. Your Lev. 4 unintentional atonement was not regularly, but only when one person, the priest, the ruler, or the whole nation unintentionally committed a sin. No unintentional sin, no sacrifice required.2. Your Lev 4 atonement was not offered in the special Holy of Holies booth behind the veil as was the Day of Atonement regularly required yearly sacrifice. Done. See above.This link below states the process of the atonement sacrifice quite well. For verification of what is said here, go to Leviticus 16 and read the chapter. http//http://www.tyngsborochurchofchrist.org/jesus

Jar, you're evading my specific question regarding the chapter. The whole book covers many subjects, but you need to focus on this chapter and answer my question for the purpose of this thread topic.

Nonsense Jar. Better read the book. It covers many subjects and this chapter is exclusively a prophecy of the suffering messiah/savior as I have shown to be the case, having shown that some of the verses in the chapter could not apply to any other person or event in history.

PB, you need to get your Greek text out and you will see that the original does not have the word theos in it. It has been added by the KJ translators which action, imo, is contrary to God's clear instruction concerning the handling of his words. It should be simply "who was manifested....." and it's not included in my American Standard Bible. This is a rare occasion where Jesus is actually addressed as God by an apostle, but one must remember the context of the book of John, for in John 14:28 Jesus plainly states the God, his father is greater than he, so he the son, always assumes the subordinate relationship to Jehovah his father. He is referred to as either the son of God, son of man or Lord of us nearly everywhere else in the NT by himself and others. Jesus, being born from the Holy Spirit has the fullness of God in him and it would be in this sense here. "God of the holy prophets" refers to Jehovah of the OT prophets, the supreme God of the universe and father of Jesus. Verse 16, of course refers to Jesus, the son. The conclusion must be reached to harmonize total scriptural context here to conclude that both the father and the son were mutually sending the angels in this case. This should not be considered to be so unusual, since the same can happen here on earth where a coordinated effort by two individuals, being earthly father and son would be used to effect a purpose or mission. One should not in either case consider the two individual entities or individuals to be one and the same entity or individuals.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 08-29-2004 08:10 PM

You're ignoring the required yearly ram which MUST be killed and it's blood sprinkled on the mercy seat of the Holy of Holies. Why are you deceitfully sweeping this fact under your rug? None of your other texts negates chapter 16, PD. True or false? This is a required yearly animal sacrifice from Jehovah God to Israel?
That's the prime debate of the topic is it not, and aren't you trying your best to deny the evidence that this regular sacrifice was required upon Israel?If a presiding high priest is disposed in any way he will be replaced and the sacrifice will go on as required.

PB, I regularly attend a 7th Day Baptist church which worships on the Biblical sabbath rather than the first day. I believe my oft reference to the proper name of Jehovah which is stated over 600 times in the OT early manuscripts and my Biblical understanding of how the trinity functions according to the common NT references to God and his son you are arriving at the wrong conclusions. I have never been in a JW assembly meeting of any kind but do refute them when visited by them to to the point that they avoid confrontation with me.
I can understand how you might ask, but I suggest you focus on addressing my statements as you have been doing a good job of so far rather than reading into them what is not there.

Thanks, brother PB. This oft acknowledgement of God's proper name which is supported by early manuscript but not common among mainstream fundamentalists, is just another case where buz does not walk in lockstep. This may sometimes provoke thought and influence people, but does not make one popular with the majority.

Yearly atonement by the high priest was made for all sins of the people and the king as the blood of the animal was sprinkled on the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies of the Temple. I believe the death penalty would not apply for the king. See above.