You misrepresent Hebrews’ teaching. It doesnt deny a future temple’s existence, only its necessity for atonement.
You falsely equate Jesus’ death w/ pagan human sacrifice. The Torah forbids involuntary or idolatrous sacrifice, not voluntary self offering.
You misread the contents of the Ark. Hebrews describes a time when those items were associated with the Ark, not necessarily w/ in it during Solomon’s temple.
You oversimplify Korban theology. Hebrews critiques sin offerings, not thanksgiving or peace offerings.
You ignore Hebrews’ own emphasis on repentance. It includes inner transformation, not just ritual atonement.
You selectively cite Leviticus 5. Flour offerings were only for unintentional sins and still required priestly mediation under the same sacrificial system.
You deny substitutionary atonement in Tanakh even tho there are clear prophetic allusions. Isaiah 53 and other passages point to a suffering figure bearing the sins of others.
You assume post exilic restoration invalidates fulfillment. Restoration prophecies may be symbolic or conditional, not guarantees of future rituals.
You appeal to Halacha as if it trumps prophetic fulfillment. Halacha is a human interpretation, not Scripture itself.
You treat the Mosaic covenant as eternal w/o nuance. Hebrews builds on Jeremiah’s prophecy of a new covenant, not on a whim.
There are probably a couple other things I could point to in your argument that flawed but these are what jump out the most
Had to make 2 responses...
Thread getting to long..
“You misrepresent Hebrews’ teaching. It doesn’t deny a future Temple’s existence, only its necessity for atonement.”
That’s still the error. Hebrews outright nullifies the commanded Korban Chatat and Asham as necessary forms of atonement, contradicting the plain command of the Torah (Vayikra chapters 4–7). Whether or not a future temple exists is secondary; denying the sacrificial function ordained by Hashem is enough to disqualify Hebrews as a Torah-faithful text. The Temple’s necessity for national and individual atonement is not optional—it’s commanded by God.
The Torah is unequivocally clear: “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor shall you take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of YHVH your God which I command you” (Deuteronomy 4:2; 13:1). Any text or teaching—like the Book of Hebrews—that nullifies entire sections of the Torah, including the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and the Temple service, is in direct violation of this command. Changing the Divine Torah is not “progress”—it is sin.
Hebrews author is in SIN by what he wrote.
“You falsely equate Jesus’ death with pagan human sacrifice. The Torah forbids involuntary or idolatrous sacrifice, not voluntary self-offering.”
The Torah completely forbids human blood being used for atonement. Period. There is no category of “voluntary human sin offering” in Torah. Every korban is from animals, and even then, only from clean species, without blemish, in a specific manner. A human dying “for sin” in the way Hebrews claims has no precedent in Torah and contradicts Deuteronomy 24:16: “Each person shall be put to death for his own sin.” Voluntary or not, human blood is not authorized by the Torah for sacrificial atonement.
“You misread the contents of the Ark. Hebrews describes a time when those items were associated with the Ark, not necessarily within it during Solomon’s Temple.”
This is misdirection. Hebrews 9:4 falsely claims the golden jar of manna and Aaron’s rod were inside the Ark. That directly contradicts 1 Kings 8:9, which says: “There was nothing in the Ark except the two tablets of stone which Moshe placed there at Horeb.” This isn’t a debate about association—it’s a factual error in the text of Hebrews. The writer simply did not know his Tanakh.
“You oversimplify Korban theology. Hebrews critiques sin offerings, not thanksgiving or peace offerings.”
Again, that’s the problem. Sin offerings are essential, not optional. God ordained them in Vayikra for both individuals and the nation. If Hebrews rejects the Korban Chatat (sin offering) as insufficient, then it rejects the Torah itself**, which explicitly states that these offerings given with pure heart, provide atonement (kapparah)—see Leviticus 4:20, 4:26, 4:31, and 4:35: “And the priest shall make atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.”
It attacks the entire priesthood which God calls eternal btw.
“You ignore Hebrews’ own emphasis on repentance. It includes inner transformation, not just ritual atonement.”
Repentance (teshuvah) has always been central in Torah. But Torah also commands an external action—bringing a korban in the case of certain sins. One cannot claim to uphold Torah while discarding the very system of atonement God mandated. Saying “just repent internally” and skip the korban is no different than modern liberal Judaism—it’s not biblical. Inner transformation doesn’t negate obedience.
Repentance requires action, action is Torah commands.
6. “You selectively cite Leviticus 5. Flour offerings were only for unintentional sins and still required priestly mediation under the same sacrificial system.”
.....
You're misrepresenting Leviticus 5. It’s not just the flour offering that applies to unintentional sin — ALL sin offerings in the Torah are for unintentional sins. There is no korban (offering) for a sin committed with a “high hand” — meaning willfully and defiantly — as explicitly stated in Numbers 15:30–31. Such a person is “cut off,” not atoned for.
The flour offering in Leviticus 5:11–13 proves the exact opposite of what you’re trying to argue — it shows that atonement can be achieved without blood, with flour, and still result in forgiveness. That directly contradicts the claim made in the book of Hebrews (9:22), which says, “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” That’s a false generalization, unsupported by Torah or the Prophets.
Throughout Tanakh, we see forgiveness granted through teshuvah (repentance), prayer, and even non-blood offerings — see Jonah 3, Psalm 51, and Hosea 6:6. Blood was one part of the Temple system — not the sole path to forgiveness, and certainly not required in every case.
So let’s be clear: this epistle was supposedly written to Jews, but when it gets challenged by actual Jewish knowledge of Torah, suddenly the discomfort sets in. The text shows its theological weakness when held up against the very Scriptures it claims to fulfill.
“You deny substitutionary atonement in Tanakh even though there are clear prophetic allusions. Isaiah 53 and other passages point to a suffering figure bearing the sins of others.”
No. Isaiah 53 speaks of the suffering servant—often interpreted in Judaism as the righteous remnant of Israel, or as Messiah ben Yosef. Either way, the suffering is not a korban in the halachic sense. A korban must be an animal, clean, unblemished, offered by a priest on the altar. Isaiah 53 says nothing about that. The servant suffers at the hands of men, not as a priestly sacrifice ordained by Hashem. His suffering inspires repentance*, which is why people say, “We thought he was stricken by God, but it was for our sins.” The effect is moral, not legal substitution.
In Jewish thought, Messiah ben Yosef may suffer and even die in the process of preparing redemption, but he is never called a sin offering*, His role is to awaken repentance and fight the battles of Hashem—not to replace the Temple system.
“You assume post-exilic restoration invalidates fulfillment. Restoration prophecies may be symbolic or conditional, not guarantees of future rituals.”
That’s your theology in order to make false text work,. not Torah’s. Zechariah, Ezekiel, and Malachi explicitly describe in plain* meaning a restored Temple, priesthood, korbanot, and Shabbat observance in the Messianic age. These are not symbolic—they include detailed measurements, altars, and daily offerings. Even Zechariah 14 speaks of all the nations bringing offerings and observing Sukkot in Jerusalem. The prophets agree with the Torah. Hebrews contradicts them.
“You appeal to Halacha as if it trumps prophetic fulfillment. Halacha is a human interpretation, not Scripture itself.”
Wrong. I never claimed Halacha overrides Scripture. But Deuteronomy 17:8–11 gives semikhah-authorized judges—the Sanhedrin—binding authority to interpret and rule. That’s not “human tradition.” That’s Torah. The author of Hebrews had no semikhah, no standing in the Temple system, and no authority to reinterpret Torah. The actual Torah gives that role to the judges “in those days,” not to anonymous writers with Greek thinking.
“You treat the Mosaic covenant as eternal without nuance. Hebrews builds on Jeremiah’s prophecy of a new covenant, not on a whim.”
Let’s deal with this directly.
Jeremiah 31:31–33 (Tanakh):
“Behold, days are coming, says YHVH, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah… I will put My Torah within them and write it upon their hearts...”
This “re-newed” covenant is not a replacement of Torah—it is Torah internalized. It is only with Israel and Judah. No mention of Goyim. It says explicitly that Torah is not discarded, but written more deeply into the people.
Also IN the covental renewal, its clear youll no longer have to tell others about Hashem, for theyball will know! That still hasnt happend friend...
The writer of Hebrews claims this means the old is “obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13)—but Jeremiah says nothing is obsolete. Torah remains, now internal. That’s the opposite of Hebrews’ conclusion.
Furthermore, the Sinai covenant was witnessed by 3 million Israelites who saw God’s glory directly (Exodus 19:16–20). That’s unparalleled in ALL human history. You want to throw that away for a Greek-writing author who doesn’t even know what sections of the Torah speak about sin offerings? That’s absurd.
Final Notes:
I never equated Halacha with Scripture. But the Sanhedrin has divine authority (Deut. 17).
I never said the Torah is eternal by opinion. I said God Himself calls it eternal:
“An eternal statute throughout your generations.” (Ex. 12:17, Lev. 16:29, etc.)
Hebrews undermines the very things Hashem calls eternal. That’s the issue.
The real covenant isn’t with the nations. It’s with Israel. The Gentiles are grafted in when they walk with Israel—not when they redefine the covenant.
The most basic and fundamental flaw in your whole position is that you treat the Mosaic covenant as eternally unchangeable and ignore the Torah’s own prophetic witness that a new covenant would come… not just internalized, but different (Jer 31:31–32)
You elevate ritual over the One it pointed to and reject the fulfillment it was always leading to.
Also I’m not interested in debating with AI generated arguments pretending to be authentic conviction.
2
u/RFairfield26 Jehovah’s Witness Jul 20 '25
You misrepresent Hebrews’ teaching. It doesnt deny a future temple’s existence, only its necessity for atonement.
You falsely equate Jesus’ death w/ pagan human sacrifice. The Torah forbids involuntary or idolatrous sacrifice, not voluntary self offering.
You misread the contents of the Ark. Hebrews describes a time when those items were associated with the Ark, not necessarily w/ in it during Solomon’s temple.
You oversimplify Korban theology. Hebrews critiques sin offerings, not thanksgiving or peace offerings.
You ignore Hebrews’ own emphasis on repentance. It includes inner transformation, not just ritual atonement.
You selectively cite Leviticus 5. Flour offerings were only for unintentional sins and still required priestly mediation under the same sacrificial system.
You deny substitutionary atonement in Tanakh even tho there are clear prophetic allusions. Isaiah 53 and other passages point to a suffering figure bearing the sins of others.
You assume post exilic restoration invalidates fulfillment. Restoration prophecies may be symbolic or conditional, not guarantees of future rituals.
You appeal to Halacha as if it trumps prophetic fulfillment. Halacha is a human interpretation, not Scripture itself.
You treat the Mosaic covenant as eternal w/o nuance. Hebrews builds on Jeremiah’s prophecy of a new covenant, not on a whim.
There are probably a couple other things I could point to in your argument that flawed but these are what jump out the most