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.