Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site aecom.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!rna!rocky2!cucard!aecom!teitz From: teitz@aecom.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Re: Re: sinner by birth, sinner by choice Message-ID: <970@aecom.UUCP> Date: Tue, 27-Nov-84 14:18:26 EST Article-I.D.: aecom.970 Posted: Tue Nov 27 14:18:26 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 30-Nov-84 07:46:20 EST References: <909@aecom.UUCP> <1501@pucc-h> Organization: Albert Einstein Coll. of Med., NY Lines: 93 > A response to one point in Eliyahu Teitz's first article on this topic: > > > 2. I would feel like an utterly useless, helpless person if the only way > > I could atone for my sins was to get someone else's help ( even jesus ). Why > > can't I approach G-D by myself and ask for myself. Why the intermediary? > > I know so little about Judaism as practiced nowadays that it's hard for me to > answer in appropriate terms. But, beginning at the time of Moses, the high > priest served in some sense as an intermediary between God and the people, > bringing the blood of animals as an atonement. Jesus, as both High Priest > and sacrifice, fulfilled this once and for all, removing the necessity for > the periodic sacrifices of animals. The Bible, in the beginning of Leviticus ( first 5 or 6 chapters ) lists many sacrifices that were brought by the Children of Israel. One of those listed was a sacrifice to atone for sin ( chatas ). The idea behind the sacrifice was that in reality the one bringing the animal should be killed, but G-D in His mercy said to bring an animal instead. The transgressor, when he brought the animal to the Temple, had to place his hands on the animal's head and say, publicly, that he regretted his actions, and that he wouldn't repeat them. The repentance process wasn't simply 'oops, I goofed, forgive me'. A person had ( and still has ) to realize his mistake, be genuinely sorry for having done it, admit to havig done it, and promise not to do it again. Then he takes the animal and brings it as a sacrifice. This process was not done once a year, on the Day of Atonement. It was a daily procedure. The High Priest didn't have to bring the sacrifice, any priest could. The Day of Atonement was a once a year process for sins not covered by the sacrifice. And there were those sins that the Day of Atonement didn't help either ( as I wrote in a previous article, sins between man and his fellow man ). In a previous article I already answered my feelings about Jesus as the high priest. Having a High Priest is not an integral part in repentance. In the Temple it was needed, but nowadays, the day itself, is the forgiveness, without High Priest or sacrifices. Knowing this can be dangerous, though. One could say, ' fine, I'll live my life as I choose and the Day of Atonement will take care of my problems'. To this the Talmud ( Tractate Yoma 8th chapter ) answers, if one says I will sin and the Day will absolve it then the Day ( of Atonement ) will not help him. Likewise, if he says, I will sin and the nrepent, his repentance is worthless. > > Another nifty way to look at this is that under the old covenant, the people > sacrificed -- completely gave up to God -- healthy animals, without blemish > or spot, which were then killed. Under the new covenant, we are called to > similarly completely give our blemished selves to God -- but the "death" of > our munged selves brings new life in us; we are called to present ourselves > as living sacrifices. Under the new covenant, God shows Himself as so much > more accepting than under the old -- perhaps because of my previous paragraph, > i.e. that since the ultimate unblemished sacrifice has been given, tearing > the curtain hiding the Holy of Holies, no one is unacceptable; we may all > boldly approach the throne of grace. I think I covered this point too. The sacrifice was instead of us. We are not called up to sacrifice ourselves. Actually we are and the animal takes our place. Why is this any less accepting than your method ? Also in my previous article I talked about human sacrifice and the idea the Jesus was a sacrifice. Even when the Temple stood there was no concept of a person being unacceptable. Entrance to the Holy of Holies was not the yardstick of accept- ance. Every person, not only Jews, could come to the Temple to offer sacrifices to G-D ( not every type of sacrifice but certain ones were permitted ). The Temple was open to everyone. The Holy of Holies was a sacred place where no one could enter, except the High Priest on the Day of Atonement. The burning of the Temple did not change that. The physical structure of a curtain or wall is not important ( I know you were talking metaphorically too ). One person dying, no matter how pure you think him dosn't change the picture either. The Talmud (Tractate Makkot, I think ) lists 7 people who dies without sin. Does this make them saviors too ? No. They died because their time had come. They all lived before the Temple. Their death did not negate the purpose or the need for the Temple. > > But note that I did mention the sacrifice, the death, of our selves. This > does mean admitting that you can't help yourself, you can't save yourself, > you can't make yourself keep God's law 100%. Helplessness, powerlessness, > is one of the least attractive feelings there is. But if, rather than > avoiding it, we accept it, we will be reborn to a new life of growing > abundance and power. If you want to be resurrected, you have to die first -- > by definition. Why does sacrifice mean I can't help myself? I think just the opposite. I bring a sacrifice exactly because I can help myself and the bringing of the sacrifice is how I help myself. The sacrifice I refer to is animal in nature and not human. My not being able to keep G-D'S laws 100% has no bearing on the matter. G=D Himself realized this. And not being perfect does not in any way hinder our ability to approach Him. We need no intermediaries. > > -- > -- Jeff Sargent > {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq > "I'm not asking for anyone's bleeding charity." > "Then do. At once. Ask for the Bleeding Charity." If you did not see my original article I will repost it or sent it to you upon request. Thanks for the answers, even though I disagree. It's good to see another point of view. Eliyahu.