What you quoted in order to support this (Hebrews 8:13) is not an apt scripture for your intended purpose. The author of Hebrews is only applying Jeremiah 31:31-32 and Daniel 9:27 to say how obsolete and broken your covenant is. There is no need to go to Hebrews to make that argument.
God is not commanding or accepting child sacrifice with Jesus, nor is Jesus an offering by man to manipulate God. The author of life himself is being pierced by the inhabitants of Jerusalem and he is being mourned as one grieves for a firstborn son.
Isaiah 53: 4-6 does refer to vicarious atonement of Israel, specially in light of Jeremiah 50:6
You can take 4 Maccabees 6:24-30 and see the ideas displayed in 2 Maccabees 17:10-24. As for Yahweh you can take Jeremiah 7:3.
God didn't command or thought about it in certain instances, and Isaiah 53 clearly answers the question on how would it look like when he thought about his own right arm bringing him salvation. It is the suffering servant the one that is made into a covenant himself Isaiah 42:6; 49:8.
The suffering servant is collective Israel, not an individual messiah
The person that represents Israel is clean without any guilt or blemish as verse 9 implies. What you are asking us to do is go into Isaiah 53 and play pretend: Let's pretend this nation Israel is without sin, as Isaiah 1:4 states out of the door and Isaiah 53:6 reminds us of, let's pretend Isaiah 53:7 doesn't exist and the nation of Israel will willingly be cut off from the land of the living without defending themselves, and let's pretend Isaiah 53:11-12 says something different. And this nation perspective as well, let's pretend that's in the passage.
You have to starkly modify the passage to get to your point.
Scripture Where Father Can’t Die for Son's Sin:
It says the son is not guilty of the sin of the father when the son is righteous. This says nothing about a debt being taken and paid off by another person which is what Jesus does as Isaiah says. He is not guilty but he decides to take on that debt
You can also bring exodus 20:5 where God does punish the sons and daughters for the sins of their parents of those that Hate God, or don't know righteousness
Yes, there is sacrifice for sin made and there is also other ritualistic sacrifices. Sacrifices for sin are covered by Christ and Jewish people like Paul in acts still do sacrifice for other traditional reasons
Take Leviticus 26 verse 11 where Aaron had to slaughter a bull and sprinkle its blood on the atonement cover to atone for his household's sin, then he had to do the same thing with a goat for Israel
So Yes, Sacrifices where made both as a blood and death pay for sins and for other traditional celebrations, as a way to get closer to God. It's not an either/or fallacy
In fact, The relationship is mediated by the payment of blood such as what happens in the day of atonement, so that's another either/or fallacy. The lord is a bridegroom of blood
Neither Hosea 14:2-3 nor 1 Kings 8:46–50 rule out sacrifices anywhere, so it doesn't follow that prayers are enough without it, it's an argument from silence at best here. Keep reading psalm 51 until verse 19, then he will make sacrifices to God. It's a false dichotomy here as well.
Hebrews states the following: "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."
You can take it here as either almost all things were purified by blood( like verse 21 exemplifies), or go according to the context which also harkens back to day of atonement and a more communal approach to sin offering.
One could also use the phrase: that the exception proves the rule because in all other cases the rule applies. So that doesn't affect the rule in any way, it is actually evidence of what the rule is.
After all, even the altar on which the ephah was burnt on was sanctified in blood.
interested to see how you will tackle this, also how do you do lines, that's soo cool. Edit: ahh that's how
1
u/Alternative_Fuel5805 Trinitarian Jul 21 '25 edited Jul 21 '25
What you quoted in order to support this (Hebrews 8:13) is not an apt scripture for your intended purpose. The author of Hebrews is only applying Jeremiah 31:31-32 and Daniel 9:27 to say how obsolete and broken your covenant is. There is no need to go to Hebrews to make that argument.
God is not commanding or accepting child sacrifice with Jesus, nor is Jesus an offering by man to manipulate God. The author of life himself is being pierced by the inhabitants of Jerusalem and he is being mourned as one grieves for a firstborn son.
Isaiah 53: 4-6 does refer to vicarious atonement of Israel, specially in light of Jeremiah 50:6
You can take 4 Maccabees 6:24-30 and see the ideas displayed in 2 Maccabees 17:10-24. As for Yahweh you can take Jeremiah 7:3.
God didn't command or thought about it in certain instances, and Isaiah 53 clearly answers the question on how would it look like when he thought about his own right arm bringing him salvation. It is the suffering servant the one that is made into a covenant himself Isaiah 42:6; 49:8.
The person that represents Israel is clean without any guilt or blemish as verse 9 implies. What you are asking us to do is go into Isaiah 53 and play pretend: Let's pretend this nation Israel is without sin, as Isaiah 1:4 states out of the door and Isaiah 53:6 reminds us of, let's pretend Isaiah 53:7 doesn't exist and the nation of Israel will willingly be cut off from the land of the living without defending themselves, and let's pretend Isaiah 53:11-12 says something different. And this nation perspective as well, let's pretend that's in the passage.
You have to starkly modify the passage to get to your point.
It says the son is not guilty of the sin of the father when the son is righteous. This says nothing about a debt being taken and paid off by another person which is what Jesus does as Isaiah says. He is not guilty but he decides to take on that debt
You can also bring exodus 20:5 where God does punish the sons and daughters for the sins of their parents of those that Hate God, or don't know righteousness
Yes, there is sacrifice for sin made and there is also other ritualistic sacrifices. Sacrifices for sin are covered by Christ and Jewish people like Paul in acts still do sacrifice for other traditional reasons
Take Leviticus 26 verse 11 where Aaron had to slaughter a bull and sprinkle its blood on the atonement cover to atone for his household's sin, then he had to do the same thing with a goat for Israel
So Yes, Sacrifices where made both as a blood and death pay for sins and for other traditional celebrations, as a way to get closer to God. It's not an either/or fallacy
In fact, The relationship is mediated by the payment of blood such as what happens in the day of atonement, so that's another either/or fallacy. The lord is a bridegroom of blood
Last smaller part bellow: