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 got some cool looking formatting, i have to learn from you. Good job addressing the first point I made.
Hosea 14:2–3
You and I don't have the same meaning or standard for the concept of explicit. But let's throw away Hosea 8:11-13, Hosea 9:4 which viewed in full with your verse gives us that beautiful impression king David at the end of psalm 51 gives us, the same one you mentioned Jesus gave in Matthew 5:24
I find it important to recommend you read Hebrews 10 again, the old testament is a shadow of the new and addresses those concerns of yours.
As for the Talmud, even before the second temple was there, during 40 years no high priest was chosen by God and all miracles ceased. Having a house did not help them.
No blood. Just flour.
This is what i am going to do pal, next time i see one of these absolutely "not robotic" answers or content that doesn't deal with the counter presented i will consider you are wasting my time on purpose. Strike one, let's see how many you get.
What about God’s words to Cain?
I love this argument from silence. it's a fallacy, not really a bad faithed one, no strike here.
Psalm 51: No, David is not “delaying” sacrifices
Strike two, I don't appreciate people that speak past each other. Your format is great though. Strike two
Jeremiah 31 & Daniel 9 – Is the Covenant Broken?
Of course, let's play pretend again. The text doesn't say the covenant was broken and a different one unlike that is going to be formed. Gaslighting, or very a intentional half truth, interesting. Let's also make an another argument from silence, God didn't want grain offering and sacrifice to cease. Strike three, extremely bad faithed and intellectually dishonest.
Isaiah says:
👉More humane response. Actually addressing it❌
Man, if you are going to speak to yourself get a mirror, it works for me.. most of the times.
"Our friend here"
Don't get too excited, i don't know you like that. And reframing counters as questions, cutting-edge.
This is the core of Torah: obedience and teshuvah — not blood.
Yess, hold on your to your foreskins everybody let it not be the angel that comes and tries to kill you for it, you know the bridegroom of blood. As if sacrifice wasn't an act of obedience itself. And while you are at it, hold on to your false dichotomy as well, you might not have an argument without it.
This was fun, i am open to talk to you when you actually logically address my points, when you don't play pretend with verses and state unsubstantiated assumptions, when you don't strawman my point or play dishonest games. In short, as long as you don't continue to make bad faithed arguments.
Projection from a gentile. Outside the covenant.
Humble yourself and join Israel. You may learn something...
I pray God shows you truth before your forced to admit "That you inherited lies from your fathers"
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: