The Whole Jesus Thing

Well, sacrifice when attoning sin was not required. What come from the lips and the heart was more important that the actual Prayer can take the place of sacrifice (see Hosea 14:3 in any Jewish translation, the KJV sort of screwed that one up.. suprise!)There were 3 principles when dealing with 'sacrifices' or 'Offerings' (Qorban transliterated from the Hebrew). One, the person has to be giving up something. So, the sacrifice of a domestic animal in the temple of your own personal belonging is one thing, a wild animal (that does not belong to anybody) is not acceptable. Or, the offering of food made from flour (which took a substantial amount to prepare) is another offering (I.e. .. it does not have to be a blood sacrifice)The next concept is the concept of subsitution..,, the item being substituted for the person making the offering, as a token of asking
for forgiveness. The 'sacrifice' is punished instead of the person,
as a measure of gods mercy. This is the concept that the early christians probably used the cruxifiction for.. however, sacrifices
had to be in the temple, the offering unblemished (scorging does blemish someone), and the story of Issac and Abraham was/is taken
as God would never demand a human sacrifice.
In addition, it is the person who was GIVING the sacrifice who's sin was forgiven.And of course, the most important part is the offering is a way to get closer to god, to live a 'sanctified life'.

Well, in that time period (and this was before there was a concept of a 'CHristian god", lambs were one of the most common domestic animals. Since it has to be somethign that is PERSONALLY owned by the person giving the offering, that is the most likely animal for sacrifice.

According to ezikiel, god created evil.

That is, of course, if you follow the Christian mythology and concept of Satan. The Jewish concept of Satan is different. In the Jewish mythology, shaitan (the accusor) as an angel , does not have free will.
His job is to provide the opportunity to do wrong, so that people will have a chance to choose to do right, and therefore become close to god and live a sanctified life.

That attitude makes God looks like a egotistical , obnoxious brat."Beleive in me the way I want, Or I will burn you in hell forever".Riggghhtt."Jesus loves you and gives you are free gift of eternal life, unless you don't believe in him, then burns you in hell forever"Riiiight.

Isaiah 45:7:
"Who fashions light and creates darkness, who makes peace and creates evil, I am HaShem who does all this

If god is 'absolute good' why did he create evil.

actually, that is a very poor translation.Why don't you read it in the Hebrew?? Or, why don't you go to your local
Rabbi (non-messanic), and he will explain it to you.

Yes, I do think that translations make a different. Translations are interpetations, and often reflect the beliefs of the translator.The Jewish word for evil is "Rah". You can see with the phrase that
the common analogy of 'LIGHT' being 'GOOD', and 'Dark' being evil is
showing that the 'RAH' is accurately translated as EVIL.It is typical in the Hebrew scriptures to have dual passages, where the same thing is said twice, in a different matter. The concept of "LIGHT" and "Darkness" is the same as 'GOod and Evil'. Thus we see
the mimicing of 'Light' as GOOD and DARKNESS as EVIL. This is a common technique in the Tanakh.

I happen to disagree.. and I can point to some Rabbi commentaries that
willl agree with my interpretation.From http://www.torah.org/learning/ramchal/classes/class40.html At this point Ramchal lays out four term-pairs used in the Torah to depict the two opposing states of G-d shining His light on the transcendent forces and the world at large, which provides goodness; and His withholding His light, which allows for evil.

​

Logically enough, the Torah often uses the term light for example to allude to G-d’s bestowing goodness, and darkness to allude to His allowing for evil. A good example would be the verse that reads, I form light as well as create darkness; I make peace as well as create evil (Isaiah 45:7).

None of which exlusively and implicitly says Jesus said he was god.Besides, this John guy wrote about it decades later, so it is unlikely
he would know what Jesus really said, if he existed at all.

The use of sacrifice for atonement was used as giving something of value up as a token of your commitment. In the Jewish religion, human sacrifice was not acceptable.. so accordign to Jewish tradition , the
sacrifice of a human to sin would be abhorent,.. that is probably one
of the reasons Paul had to go OUTSIDE of judaism for converts.

None of those passages have anything to do with Jesus what so ever. None of those passages, if read in context, has anything to do with any messiah or messiah expections.

The story of barabbas makes the parrell to that clearer too. Oh.. Barabbas , translated from the arameic, means 'Son of the Father'.Wasn't Jesus supposed to be the 'Son of the Father'??

Ah yes, the ISAIAH 53 misiterpretation.If you read it in context (In otherwords, from the previous section), you will see that Isaiah was specifically talking about the nation of ISRAEL, not some messiah.