Commencement of the Renewal of the Covenant

[HIM]

I note that you cut off the end of the most important verse but we already went through all of this in your thread.

Once again you did not address the points shown through the context of the passage. And I did not purposefully cut anything off. With your insinuation stated I can't but help wonder if you have even read what was addressed to you. Because if you did you would have noted that though verse 25 was cut short the context of it was included in the explanation.

As was stated, "He plainly says the law that he found is that evil is present with him in verse 21. He said it context to previously mentioning in verse 20 that the good he wants to do he can't but the evil he doesn't want to do he does. This is the Law that he found. And this Law he calls the Law of sin in verse 23. And in His despair he cries out who shall deliver him from this body of death that his flesh serves, the law that he found. That which is the good he would he couldn't, but the evil he would, he did. Which is the law of the sin according to the context of the passage."

Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh t

Faulty atonement dogma. The so-called scapegoat isn't sacrificed or slain but rather sent away and let loose in the desert-wilderness with all the sins of the congregation placed upon its head, ("be sure your sin will find you out").



Faulty atonement dogma. The scapegoat is sent away and let go in the desert with all the sins of the congregation upon its (mortally wounded) head. It is not sacrificed for sins. It is not a sin offering.

No one said it was. So faulty premise on your part. Not trying to be insulting, but once again, are you even reading what is posted to you?

The topic here was the fact that the sacrifice takes the sin upon itself through the confessor. Nothing you posted "again" proves the sin did not go from the confessor to the sacrifice. Thereby making the sacrifice the confessed sin.

But the transferring of the sin does not stop there. It goes from the sacrifice to the alter to the scapegoat. However a part is missed in that explanation. Actually the sin goes from the confessor to the sacrifice, to the priest and the tabernacle to the Scapegoat. And the Mitre and clothing worn by the Priests protected them lest they die due to the sins that they bore for the congregation and the uncleanness due to their sins which were placed upon the Sanctuary, thereby defiling it. Here are the verses showing us this.

Leviticus 1:4 shows the confessor putting their sins upon the sacrifice. Leviticus 16:21 shows Aaron transferring these sins upon the scapegoat. Exodus 28:36-38 shows us that the Mitre upon Aarons head was placed there so that he could bear the iniquity of the Holy things and not die. Exodus 28:40-43 show us also the garments that Aaron and his sons wore protected them from dying due to the sin they bore. Leviticus 10:17 shows us that priests bore the sins of the people through partaking of the sacrifice that the sins were confessed upon. Not only did Priests bear the sins of the people, but also the defilement that the sins placed upon the sanctuary. Numbers 18:1 reveals this. Verse 22 and 23 of the same chapter shows that the children of Israel could not come near to the Sanctuary lest they bear their sin and die. But that the Priests would bear their sins. And finally Leviticus 16 shows us that the sins that Aaron bore were transferred to the Scapegoat. Whom you said represented the old man sin nature. Which isn't true. The scapegoat represent Lucifer whom our old man sin nature is placed. As of now it is condemned in the flesh that righteousness of the law be fulfilled in us who walk after the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus whom we as Christians put on. Whether we are Jew or Greek. Male or female, Boldman or free. We are all one in Christ.


Lev 1:4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.
Lev 16:18 And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the LORD, and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about.

Lev 16:19 And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.

Lev 16:20 And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat:
Lev 16:21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
Lev 16:22 And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

Exod 28:36 And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and grave upon it, like the engravings of a signet, HOLINESS TO THE LORD.
Exod 28:37 And thou shalt put it on a blue lace, that it may be upon the mitre; upon the forefront of the mitre it shall be.
Exod 28:38 And it shall be upon Aaron's forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things, which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the LORD.

Exod 28:43 And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.

Lev 10:17 Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?

Num 18:1 And the LORD said unto Aaron, Thou and thy sons and thy father's house with thee shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary: and thou and thy sons with thee shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood.

Num 18:22 Neither must the children of Israel henceforth come nigh the tabernacle of the congregation, lest they bear sin, and die.
Num 18:23 But the Levites shall do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation, and they shall bear their iniquity: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations, that among the children of Israel they have no inheritance.

LOL. Where is the word for offering in the Hebrew text from which your translation comes? You have two occurrences for sin offering: please show me the two words from the Hebrew text for sin and offering in each of the two occurrences of that phrase in your translation.

You cannot do so because the text uses only one word, which is the word for either sin or a sin offering, because the same word in Hebrew can mean either the sin or the sin offering, just as has been thoroughly explained multiple times at this point. That is why the LXX follows the same rule, for the Greek in the LXX is nothing more than a language on loan, which is being borrowed and used to convey Hebrew thoughts and ideas to the reader: but you desperately need to put the blame on me for your ignorance and disbelief so that you can continue to believe what you wish to believe instead of the truth.

LOL? No one said that the word offering was in the Hebrew. The fact is it was explicitly stated it was not. So another faulty premise. Here is the post again verbatim. Why not actually answer the points made this time.

"No it is a private interpretation. A paraphrase more or less. Because the word offering is not there in the Greek or in the Hebrew. And as was said. Leviticus 6:25 is of it's own context. The Law of sin in Lev 6 is described in the text that follow. It has to with the Levites and their ministry and has no bearing on Paul who was a Benjaminite and what he was sharing in Romans 7. You are trying to make a parallel that does not exist.

Lev 6:25 Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the LORD: it is most holy.
Lev 6:26 The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation.
Lev 6:27 Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy: and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy place.
Lev 6:28 But the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken: and if it be sodden in a brasen pot, it shall be both scoured, and rinsed in water.
Lev 6:29 All the males among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy.
Lev 6:30 And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire."

 

[daq]

The topic here was the fact that the sacrifice takes the sin upon itself through the confessor. Nothing you posted "again" proves the sin did not go from the confessor to the sacrifice. Thereby making the sacrifice the confessed sin.

Nothing you posted proves your assertion.

But the transferring of the sin does not stop there. It goes from the sacrifice to the alter to the scapegoat.

No it doesn't.

However a part is missed in that explanation. Actually the sin goes from the confessor to the sacrifice, to the priest and the tabernacle to the Scapegoat. And the Mitre and clothing worn by the Priests protected them lest they die due to the sins that they bore for the congregation and the uncleanness due to their sins which were placed upon the Sanctuary, thereby defiling it. Here are the verses showing us this.

This is all based on assumptions which you are adding into the Torah.

Leviticus 1:4 shows the confessor putting their sins upon the sacrifice.

No it does not. There is nothing in that passage about confessing any sin or sins upon the head of the offering, and moreover, the offering is a voluntary olah, which is an ascending offering, not a sin offering.

Leviticus 1:1-5 KJV
1 And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice [olah] of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.
4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.
5 And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

There is nothing about confessing sins upon the head of the offering: it is not even a sin offering but an olah, an ascending offering, (and the LXX reads καρπωματος, a yield offering). You inserted your own reasoning into the text: and you continue to do the same throughout the remainder of your post. This is a catastrophic error right from the start.

Leviticus 16:21 shows Aaron transferring these sins upon the scapegoat.

Again, the so-called scapegoat is not even slain: it is let go into the desert with all the sins of the congregation upon its mortally wounded head. This was only done once per year according to both Leviticus 16 and the author of Hebrews.

Exodus 28:36-38 shows us that the Mitre upon Aarons head was placed there so that he could bear the iniquity of the Holy things and not die. Exodus 28:40-43 show us also the garments that Aaron and his sons wore protected them from dying due to the sin they bore. Leviticus 10:17 shows us that priests bore the sins of the people through partaking of the sacrifice that the sins were confessed upon. Not only did Priests bear the sins of the people, but also the defilement that the sins placed upon the sanctuary. Numbers 18:1 reveals this. Verse 22 and 23 of the same chapter shows that the children of Israel could not come near to the Sanctuary lest they bear their sin and die. But that the Priests would bear their sins. And finally Leviticus 16 shows us that the sins that Aaron bore were transferred to the Scapegoat. Whom you said represented the old man sin nature. Which isn't true. The scapegoat represent Lucifer whom our old man sin nature is placed. As of now it is condemned in the flesh that righteousness of the law be fulfilled in us who walk after the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus whom we as Christians put on. Whether we are Jew or Greek. Male or female, Boldman or free. We are all one in Christ.


Lev 1:4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.
Lev 16:18 And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the LORD, and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about.

Lev 16:19 And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.

Lev 16:20 And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat:
Lev 16:21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
Lev 16:22 And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

Exod 28:36 And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and grave upon it, like the engravings of a signet, HOLINESS TO THE LORD.
Exod 28:37 And thou shalt put it on a blue lace, that it may be upon the mitre; upon the forefront of the mitre it shall be.
Exod 28:38 And it shall be upon Aaron's forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things, which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the LORD.

Exod 28:43 And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.

Lev 10:17 Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?

Num 18:1 And the LORD said unto Aaron, Thou and thy sons and thy father's house with thee shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary: and thou and thy sons with thee shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood.

Num 18:22 Neither must the children of Israel henceforth come nigh the tabernacle of the congregation, lest they bear sin, and die.
Num 18:23 But the Levites shall do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation, and they shall bear their iniquity: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations, that among the children of Israel they have no inheritance.

Jumping to more assumptions and conclusions based on the bad initial reading of Lev 1:4.

"No it is a private interpretation. A paraphrase more or less. Because the word offering is not there in the Greek or in the Hebrew. And as was said. Leviticus 6:25 is of it's own context. The Law of sin in Lev 6 is described in the text that follow. It has to with the Levites and their ministry and has no bearing on Paul who was a Benjaminite and what he was sharing in Romans 7. You are trying to make a parallel that does not exist.

Not true because the Levitical priesthood has been transformed and this was foretold in the Prophet Malachi. It therefore has everything to do with Paul's discourse in Romans 7 for those who know the Torah as he says. As for a private interpretation, that's your accusation against all English translators, not just me, for everone else but you realizes what has already been explained to you herein multiple times concerning both H2403 חַטָּאָה chatta'ah and G266 ἀμαρτία amartia. You therefore are the odd man out because you refuse to believe what I said, and yet, what I said is known by just about every expositor and translator.

Lev 6:25 Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the LORD: it is most holy.
Lev 6:26 The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation.
Lev 6:27 Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy: and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy place.
Lev 6:28 But the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken: and if it be sodden in a brasen pot, it shall be both scoured, and rinsed in water.
Lev 6:29 All the males among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy.
Lev 6:30 And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire."

There are many reasons from the scripture why you will never convince me that your atonement theory is correct. The following is just one more of those reasons.

Leviticus 16:7-9 ASV
7 And he shall take the two goats, and set them before Jehovah at the door of the tent of meeting.
8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for Jehovah, and the other lot for Azazel.
9 And Aaron shall present the goat upon which the lot fell for Jehovah, and offer him for a sin-offering.

Matthew 22:11-13 ASV
11 But when the king came in to behold the guests, he saw there a man who had not on a wedding-garment:
12 and he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding-garment? And he was speechless.
13 Then the king said to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and cast him out into the outer darkness; there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.

The highlighted text in the above is a quote from Sefer Henok.

1Enoch 10:4 (R.H. Charles 1917)
4. And again the Lord said to Raphael: 'Bind Azâzêl hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dûdâêl, and cast him therein.

It is extremely risky to believe what you believe.
It should not be necessary for me to explain why.

 

[daq]

Not true because the Levitical priesthood has been transformed and this was foretold in the Prophet Malachi.

Re: Posts #1-5 on Page 1 of this thread.

Malachi 2:1-9
[01] And now, O Kohanim, this commandment is for you.
[02] If you will not hear, and if you will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto My name, says YHWH Tzabaoth, I will send a bitter-curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because you do not lay it to heart.
[03] Behold, I will corrupt your seed and spread dung upon your faces, the dung of your feasts: and you shall be taken away with it.
[04] And you shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that My covenant with Levi may continue, says YHWH Tzabaoth.
[05] My covenant with him was the life and the peace: and I appointed them to him for the reverence wherewith he reverenced Me, and feared before My name.
[06] The Torah of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with Me in peace and equity, and turned many away from iniquity.
[07] For the lips of the Kohen should keep knowledge, and they should seek the Torah at his mouth: for he is the messenger of YHWH Tzabaoth.
[08] But you are departed out of the way, you have caused many to stumble in the Torah: you have corrupted the covenant of Levi, says YHWH Tzabaoth.
[09] Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people accordingly, for you have not guarded My ways, and have been partial with the Torah.

Malachi 3:1-6
[01] Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me, and suddenly the Master whom you seek shall come to his temple: and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he shall come, says YHWH Tzabaoth.
[02] But who can endure the day of his coming? and who will stand when he appears? for he is like the fire of the refiner, and as the soap [acidic alkali] of the fuller.
[03] And he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi, and refine them as gold and silver: and they shall offer the minḥah [bread offering (Leviticus 2)] to YHWH in righteousness.
[04] And the minḥah of Yhudah and Yerushalem will be pleasant to YHWH, as in the days of old, as in the ancient years.
[05] And I will draw near unto you for judgment: and I will be a speedy witness against the enchanters, and against the adulterers, and against the swearers, and against those who reverence Me not, who oppress the hireling in his wages, and the widow, and the fatherless, and who deprive the foreigner of justice, says YHWH Tzabaoth.
[06] For I am YHWH, I change not, and therefore you sons of Yaakob are not consumed.

 

[HIM]

No it does not. There is nothing in that passage about confessing any sin or sins upon the head of the offering, and moreover, the offering is a voluntary olah, which is an ascending offering, not a sin offering.

Leviticus 1:1-5 KJV
1 And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice [olah] of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.
4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.
5 And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

There is nothing about confessing sins upon the head of the offering: it is not even a sin offering but an olah, an ascending offering, (and the LXX reads καρπωματος, a yield offering).

The ceremony in respect to the laying on of hand is prescribed for animal sacrifices typically. Hence why Leviticus 1:4 was quoted. (1) for the Burnt-Offering here and Lev 8:18; Exo 29:15; (2) for the Peace-Offering Lev 3:2; Lev 3:8; Lev 3:13; (3) for the Sin-Offering Lev 4:4; Lev 4:15; Lev 4:24; Lev 4:29; Lev 4:33, Lev 8:14; Exo 29:10; 2Ch 29:23; (4) for both Burnt-Offering and Sin-Offering Num 8:12.

In the burnt offering an atonement is accepted in respect to the one sacrificing.

An atonement from what? Sin.

Aaron laid hands on the head of the scapegoat and confessed and transferred the sins of the people before releasing it. It is commonly understood that the same principle happened during the Burnt offering and sin offering though they were sacrificed. That is, the people confessed and transferred their sins to the sacrifice.

Gershom ben Judah, Abraham Ibn Ezra and Moses ben Maimon all thought the same thing.

You inserted your own reasoning into the text: and you continue to do the same throughout the remainder of your post. This is a catastrophic error right from the start.

Then address each point rather than make an unsubstantiated claim.

Because it literally says that Aaron will bear the iniquity of the Holy things in Exodus 28:38 and through the Mitre. And through the girdle and bonnet Aaron and his sons will not experience death because of the iniquity that they bear when they are in the Holy Place.


Exod 28:36 And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and grave upon it, like the engravings of a signet, HOLINESS TO THE LORD.
Exod 28:37 And thou shalt put it on a blue lace, that it may be upon the mitre; upon the forefront of the mitre it shall be.
Exod 28:38 And it shall be upon Aaron's forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things, which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the LORD.
Exod 28:39 And thou shalt embroider the coat of fine linen, and thou shalt make the mitre of fine linen, and thou shalt make the girdle of needlework.
Exod 28:40 And for Aaron's sons thou shalt make coats, and thou shalt make for them girdles, and bonnets shalt thou make for them, for glory and for beauty.
Exod 28:41 And thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him; and shalt anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office.
Exod 28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
Exod 28:43 And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.


And the fact that when Eleazer and Ithamar were being chided for not following the directions given to them it literally says again that they were to bear the iniquity of the congregation in Leviticus 10:17.


Lev 10:16 And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron which were left alive, saying,
Lev 10:17 Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?


And again in respect to the Levites as a whole it literally says that they bear the Iniquity of the congregation.


Num 18:1 And the LORD said unto Aaron, Thou and thy sons and thy father's house with thee shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary: and thou and thy sons with thee shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood.

Num 18:22 Neither must the children of Israel henceforth come nigh the tabernacle of the congregation, lest they bear sin, and die.
Num 18:23 But the Levites shall do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation, and they shall bear their iniquity: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations, that among the children of Israel they have no inheritance.



And it literally says that Jesus bore our sins who Aaron and Levites ministry prefigured.



1Pet 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

2Cor 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Again, the so-called scapegoat is not even slain: it is let go into the desert with all the sins of the congregation upon its mortally wounded head. This was only done once per year according to both Leviticus 16 and the author of Hebrews.

Yes the sanctuary was cleansed once a year. No one said any different.
And No one said the scapegoat was slain. You keep saying this as if it was said it was slain. You okay?

Not true because the Levitical priesthood has been transformed and this was foretold in the Prophet Malachi.

True

It therefore has everything to do with Paul's discourse in Romans 7 for those who know the Torah as he says. As for a private interpretation, that's your accusation against all English translators, not just me, for everone else but you realizes what has already been explained to you herein multiple times concerning both H2403 חַטָּאָה chatta'ah and G266 ἀμαρτία amartia. You therefore are the odd man out because you refuse to believe what I said, and yet, what I said is known by just about every expositor and translator.

Not true. Most expositors believe the Law of Sin Paul mentioned is the Torah. They are wrong also.

 

[daq]

The ceremony in respect to the laying on of hand is prescribed for animal sacrifices typically. Hence why Leviticus 1:4 was quoted. (1) for the Burnt-Offering here and Lev 8:18; Exo 29:15; (2) for the Peace-Offering Lev 3:2; Lev 3:8; Lev 3:13; (3) for the Sin-Offering Lev 4:4; Lev 4:15; Lev 4:24; Lev 4:29; Lev 4:33, Lev 8:14; Exo 29:10; 2Ch 29:23; (4) for both Burnt-Offering and Sin-Offering Num 8:12.

In the burnt offering an atonement is accepted in respect to the one sacrificing.

An atonement from what? Sin.

Aaron laid hands on the head of the scapegoat and confessed and transferred the sins of the people before releasing it. It is commonly understood that the same principle happened during the Burnt offering and sin offering though they were sacrificed. That is, the people confessed and transferred their sins to the sacrifice.

Gershom ben Judah, Abraham Ibn Ezra and Moses ben Maimon all thought the same thing.




Then address each point rather than make an unsubstantiated claim.

Because it literally says that Aaron will bear the iniquity of the Holy things in Exodus 28:38 and through the Mitre. And through the girdle and bonnet Aaron and his sons will not experience death because of the iniquity that they bear when they are in the Holy Place.


Exod 28:36 And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and grave upon it, like the engravings of a signet, HOLINESS TO THE LORD.
Exod 28:37 And thou shalt put it on a blue lace, that it may be upon the mitre; upon the forefront of the mitre it shall be.
Exod 28:38 And it shall be upon Aaron's forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things, which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the LORD.
Exod 28:39 And thou shalt embroider the coat of fine linen, and thou shalt make the mitre of fine linen, and thou shalt make the girdle of needlework.
Exod 28:40 And for Aaron's sons thou shalt make coats, and thou shalt make for them girdles, and bonnets shalt thou make for them, for glory and for beauty.
Exod 28:41 And thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him; and shalt anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office.
Exod 28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
Exod 28:43 And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.


And the fact that when Eleazer and Ithamar were being chided for not following the directions given to them it literally says again that they were to bear the iniquity of the congregation in Leviticus 10:17.


Lev 10:16 And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron which were left alive, saying,
Lev 10:17 Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?


And again in respect to the Levites as a whole it literally says that they bear the Iniquity of the congregation.


Num 18:1 And the LORD said unto Aaron, Thou and thy sons and thy father's house with thee shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary: and thou and thy sons with thee shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood.

Num 18:22 Neither must the children of Israel henceforth come nigh the tabernacle of the congregation, lest they bear sin, and die.
Num 18:23 But the Levites shall do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation, and they shall bear their iniquity: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations, that among the children of Israel they have no inheritance.



And it literally says that Jesus bore our sins who Aaron and Levites ministry prefigured.



1Pet 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

It seems to me that you fail to recognize the fact that both of us are presenting opinions. This is the very reason why I have presented my reasoning from the scripture as to why I believe it is the way it is. You have not actually done that and rather just keep repeating your opinions and quoting passages translated by others who appear to hold your same opinions. This accomplishes nothing in the overall scheme of things because you have not actually provided valid scripture reasoning for what you believe, while I indeed have done so. You are not just ignoring my opinion but also the scripture reasoning behind that opinion.

In my understanding of the scripture you are by default, whether you realize it or not, (but you should by now because it has already been explained in this thread), you are by default claiming that the Father commands the Kohanim to consume sin, to eat sin, to partake in sin, because He states that the sin offering is most holy and commands the Kohanim to consume the sin offering in the holy place: but you claim that the sin offering becomes sin, and therefore your claim is by default that the Kohanim who partake of the sin offering are partaking in sin. This is your teaching, the reasoning is inescapable: it doesn't matter if you decide not to take your doctrine to its conclusion and instead decide to ignore that reasoning and logic so that you can continue to believe what you wish.

No doubt this is why in the next portion of your post you again quote a disputed reading of 2Cor 5:21, for your choice of translation reinforces your paradigm, and you therefore choose to ignore the fact that it is disputed and pretend that it is the absolute truth just because you shopped a translation that says what you think it should say without ever having actually proven to yourself or me that your translation is indeed correct according to scripture reasoning, doctrine, and teachings, and especially what is taught in the Torah.

2Cor 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Do you expect me to just accept this as a correct reading of the Greek text, even though I have already shown you my reasoning from the scripture for believing your choice of translation is incorrect? especially in light of the fact that you have not presented any scripture reasoning for either case, but just keep posting your opinions instead? I have already shown that there are at least five translations that render one occurrence of hamartia in this passage as a sin-offering, (again, the CJB, NLT, REV, The New Testament by Charles Williams, and The Holy Bible: New European Version).

What therefore does it mean when you again resort to a passage that you already know is disputed and you do so without any actual scripture reasoning for saying that it means what you and your chosen translation say that it means? It merely means that you have chosen a translation that says what agrees with your opinion, and that is all it means, because you have not offered any scripture reasoning and logic for your opinion which is found in your chosen translation.

Should I just accept it just because you say so? or just because there are more translations which confirm your opinion than there are which confirm my opinion? If that fact meant anything it would only mean that you are on a broad road with many fellow travelers while I am with a much smaller minority. If you want to believe that such a thing means your opinion is the truth, then I suppose it is your right to believe so, and who am I to stop you?

Not true. Most expositors believe the Law of Sin Paul mentioned is the Torah. They are wrong also.

Once again, that is only according to your own opinion without any real scripture evidence in support or against either way. I am neither interested in nor swayed by proclamations, but interested in and swayed by scripture reasoning: whether in support or against any topic, teaching, or principle.

 

[daq]

I haven't been able to follow the story line, but the title of the thread interests me. From the Greek I think either renewed or new could apply. From the Gospels two say, “This is the blood of the covenant”, one Gospel says, “This is the blood of the new covenant”, one of the Gospels does not mention the matter.


The covenant, regarding the Kingdom of God and salvation, is the first five books (+ the prophets) of the Bible; if these were to be abrogated or discontinued, why would Jesus say, “nothing could be changed in them”.


If there is a new covenant that is different to the old, apart from better administration, then someone should be able to articulate it; they might say the new covenant is the epistles of Paul.


It is amazing how far people will go to avoid keeping the commandments of God, the excuses they make; in most cases it would only involve different thinking.

The translations that say "this is my blood of the new covenant" in Matthew and Mark end up refuting themselves in the Luke companion passage because whoever inserted kainos into those texts did not understand the Pesakh Seder. The Luke passage clearly reveals that two different cups are involved, and this is correct, as we know there are multiple cups at the Seder. The Luke passage reveals that multiple covenants are being confirmed, not just one, and the first is the covenant "for many" or concerning many, (which may even be a reference to the multiple covenants mentioned in the whole of the Tanach), while the new-renewed covenant is "for you", meaning the apostles to whom the Master says it in the Luke passage, and that is because the new-renewed covenant is personal, private, and individual, just as the Gospel, to each in his or her own appointed times appointed of the Father.

No one gets to drink of the renewed covenant cup if they refuse the first cup of the covenant. That's why the T/R (KJV, etc.) and Byzantine textual families have an altered text in Matthew and Mark: for at one point some ignorant scribe took the Luke passage statement as meaning the same cup as the one spoken of in Matthew and Mark, and inserted kainos into the Matthew and Mark companion passages.

Matthew 26:26-28 ASV
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.

Mark 14:22-24 ASV
22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take ye: this is my body.
23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it.
24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

And the Luke companion passage contains the cup of the kainos new-renewed covenant, which is private and personal, to each in his own appointed times, as is all of the Gospel, and in this case it is to his inner circle because they have all been through his ministry, and thus, immersed into his doctrine all together at the same time.

Luke22:14-20 ASV
14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the apostles with him.
15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
16 for I say unto you, I shall not eat it, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
17 And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18 for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.

Two cups mentioned, and they are not the same, and the first cup in the above Luke passage is the cup mentioned in Matthew and Mark. The first cup is not the kainos new-renewed covenant because that one is the second cup mentioned in the Luke passage. This can also be proven by a closer inspection of the surrounding context in all three passages.

 

[sparow]

The translations that say "this is my blood of the new covenant" in Matthew and Mark end up refuting themselves in the Luke companion passage because whoever inserted kainos into those texts did not understand the Pesakh Seder. The Luke passage clearly reveals that two different cups are involved, and this is correct, as we know there are multiple cups at the Seder. The Luke passage reveals that multiple covenants are being confirmed, not just one, and the first is the covenant "for many" or concerning many, (which may even be a reference to the multiple covenants mentioned in the whole of the Tanach), while the new-renewed covenant is "for you", meaning the apostles to whom the Master says it in the Luke passage, and that is because the new-renewed covenant is personal, private, and individual, just as the Gospel, to each in his or her own appointed times appointed of the Father.

No one gets to drink of the renewed covenant cup if they refuse the first cup of the covenant. That's why the T/R (KJV, etc.) and Byzantine textual families have an altered text in Matthew and Mark: for at one point some ignorant scribe took the Luke passage statement as meaning the same cup as the one spoken of in Matthew and Mark, and inserted kainos into the Matthew and Mark companion passages.

Matthew 26:26-28 ASV
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.

Mark 14:22-24 ASV
22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take ye: this is my body.
23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it.
24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

And the Luke companion passage contains the cup of the kainos new-renewed covenant, which is private and personal, to each in his own appointed times, as is all of the Gospel, and in this case it is to his inner circle because they have all been through his ministry, and thus, immersed into his doctrine all together at the same time.

Luke22:14-20 ASV
14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the apostles with him.
15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
16 for I say unto you, I shall not eat it, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
17 And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18 for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.

Two cups mentioned, and they are not the same, and the first cup in the above Luke passage is the cup mentioned in Matthew and Mark. The first cup is not the kainos new-renewed covenant because that one is the second cup mentioned in the Luke passage. This can also be proven by a closer inspection of the surrounding context in all three passages.

I haven't decided if I agree 100% or 98%. I'll get back after Xmas; not that I keep Xmas, but it interferes with my timetable.