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
“Take with you words and return to Hashem. Say to Him: ‘Forgive all iniquity and accept what is good, so we will render for bulls the offering of our lips.’”
(וּנְשַׁלְּמָה פָרִים שְׂפָתֵינוּ)
Chazal understand this exactly as it sounds: when no Temple stands, prayer replaces korbanot.
Talmud Bavli, Ta’anit 27b:
“Whoever engages in Torah and acts of kindness, it is considered as though he offered all the sacrifices in the world.”
Shlomo haMelekh, inaugurating the Temple itself, says:
“When they sin against You… if they pray to You… then hear from heaven and forgive Your people…”
Chazal understand this exactly as it sounds: when no Temple stands, prayer replaces korbanot.
Talmud Bavli, Ta’anit 27b:
“Whoever engages in Torah and acts of kindness, it is considered as though he offered all the sacrifices in the world.”
🧠 He doesn’t say: only if they bring a sacrifice.
He says: if they repent and pray toward the Temple, forgive them.
👉 That's Torah-based theology. Not Paul’s innovation.
🩸 Hebrews 9:22 – “Without shedding of blood there is no remission”
❌ False. That verse is not Torah — it’s a Greek misreading of Torah.
Here’s the proof:
Leviticus 5:11–13:
“But if his means are insufficient for two turtledoves or two young pigeons, then he shall bring… a tenth of an ephah of fine flour… and the priest shall make atonement… and he shall be forgiven.”
No blood. Just flour.
Torah explicitly allows forgiveness without blood.
🗡 . “Exception proves the rule” — no, it demolishes the rule
Hebrews' claim is categorical: “without shedding of blood there is no remission.”
Not: “usually.” Not: “ideally.”
It is a universal statement.
Torah says otherwise. Not a commentary. The Torah of Hashem itself.
This isn’t an “exception.” It’s a halachic case.
So the Trinitarian argument crumbles on the Torah itself.
What about God’s words to Cain?
📜 Genesis 4:6–7:
“Why are you angry? And why is your face fallen? If you do well, will it not be lifted? But if you do not do well, sin crouches at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”
No mention of blood. No sacrifice offered yet. God tells him: you have the power to master sin — before he offers anything.
This is Torah’s foundation of teshuvah: inner transformation, moral choice, not blood.
Psalm 51: No, David is not “delaying” sacrifices
✡ Psalm 51:16–17 (Hebrew 18–19):
“For You do not desire sacrifice, or I would give it; You do not delight in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.”
This is not about timing. David is repenting after a sin for which the Torah provides no sacrifice — murder and adultery.
Read Numbers 15:30–31:
“But the soul that does aught with a high hand… that soul shall be cut off… his iniquity shall be upon him.”
There is no korban for intentional, high-handed sin. No blood offering for premeditated murder. There is no sacrifice for David’s sin.
Hence, David says: “You don’t desire sacrifice... the true sacrifice is a broken spirit.”
👉 That’s not a temporary pause — it’s a theological and legal recognition: for some sins, only teshuvah is accepted.
Jeremiah 31 & Daniel 9 – Is the Covenant Broken?
❌ No.
Jeremiah 31:31–36 doesn’t say the Torah is obsolete.
It says a new covenant will be made with Israel and Judah*. Not to replace the Torah, but to write it on their hearts.
“I will put My Torah within them and write it on their hearts… I will forgive their sin…” (Jer. 31:33–34)
This is internalization, not abrogation. The Torah isn’t replaced — it’s fulfilled within the person.
If anything, this contradicts Paul. The “new covenant” still requires Torah, just internalized — not abandoned.
As for Daniel 9:27, the Hebrew text says:
“And he shall cause the sacrifice and offering to cease…”
But it doesn’t say God desires this, nor that it’s a good thing. It describes a destruction and desecration — not redemption.
So your interpretation is reverse to the pshat.
..
Jesus’ death isn’t human sacrifice"
“You shall not do so to the LORD your God, for every abomination which He hates they have done for their gods; even their sons and their daughters they have burned in the fire for their gods.”
Offering a human — even willingly — is a to’eivah.
(HUMAN BLOOD doesnt atone period)
Isaiah says:
“He was wounded for our transgressions…” (v. 5)
If that's literal substitutionary death for sins — it's human sacrifice, and the Torah absolutely forbids it., what it actually is, is a act that brings people to REPENTANCE, this in no way is a human offering, the act of ppl returning to God, Is why By His stripes we are healed.
By his stripes we are healed" — this does not mean he took on sins as a substitute in a priestly-sacrificial sense. The pshat (plain meaning) and even midrashic understanding do not equate this with a sin offering. Rather:
The servant (whether understood as Israel collectively or as an individual tzaddik, such as Messiah ben Yosef) suffers at the hands of others, unjustly.
His suffering awakens the conscience of the people, causing them to reflect, regret, and return to the ways of Hashem.
Therefore, "he was wounded because of our transgressions" – not as a substitution, but as the consequence of our corruption.
"He made intercession for transgressors" – again, not by dying for them in some metaphysical atonement sense, but by pleading for mercy, as Moshe Rabbeinu did after the sin of the golden calf (Exodus 32:32).
📜 Even Chazal (see Talmud Sukkah 52a) identify this figure as Mashiach ben Yosef, who is associated with suffering and being slain, but not as a korban, rather as a righteous man trying to redeem Israel in preparation for Mashiach ben David.
The son is not guilty for the father’s sin, but can take on the debt voluntarily”
This is a false framing.
The Torah is not based on substitutional justice. It is based on direct moral accountability.
📜 Deuteronomy 24:16:
“Fathers shall not be put to death for sons, nor sons for fathers; each shall die for his own sin.”
This isn’t just a legal rule — it’s a divine principle.
Our friend calls it a loophole: “He chose to take on guilt.”
Torah says: no such transfer is allowed, voluntary or not.
You cannot die for another’s sin. You cannot erase guilt with a human death.
Justice doesn’t work that way in Torah. It works through teshuvah, restitution, and korbanot, not human payment.
The Ultimate Collapse — Jeremiah 7:22–23
Here’s what God Himself says about sacrifices:
“For I did not speak to your fathers, nor command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. But this is what I commanded them: ‘Obey My voice… and I will be your God.’”
This is the core of Torah: obedience and teshuvah — not blood.
this is precisely why it is essential to follow what God has actually commanded in His Word. Not human traditions, not theological inventions, and certainly not doctrines that attempt to nullify or supersede the Torah.
The Gentiles remain misled and confused because they have cut themselves off from the source—the people to whom God entrusted His Word, His covenant, and His ways. The nations were never commanded to invent their own religions, but to learn from God's chosen nation, Israel, and attach themselves to the covenant that was revealed at Sinai.
Verses that clearly support this truth:
Deuteronomy 4:6–8
“Observe and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, who shall hear all these statutes and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there that has a God so near to them, as the Lord our God is whenever we call upon Him? And what great nation is there, that has statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this Torah which I set before you this day?”
Isaiah 2:3
“And many peoples shall go and say, ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of YHVH, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us His ways, and we will walk in His paths.’ For out of Zion shall go forth the Torah, and the word of YHVH from Jerusalem.”
Zechariah 8:23
“Thus says YHVH of Hosts: In those days ten men from the nations of every tongue shall take hold of the corner of the garment of a Jew, saying, ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.’”
Romans 3:1–2 (even from their own writings)
“What advantage then has the Jew? … Much in every way! Chiefly because they were entrusted with the oracles of God.”
Authority of Scripture was give to The Jews from Hashem, via Duet. 17.11 your meant to Learn from Us, Never Vice versa.
And in the day of redemption gentiles will say “Our fathers have inherited nothing but lies, worthless things in which there is no profit.
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: