Temple, atonement and Jesus

Athetotheist wrote: Sun Sep 17, 2023 12:16 am If he was the Messiah and the Messiah’s role was to be a sacrifice for people who no longer had a temple for offering sacrifices, how had his time not come?

First temple was destroyed around 587 BC. The second temple was completed around 515 BC. This is a gap of 72 years.
The second temple was destroyed at 70 AD. The third temple has not been built yet. This is a gap of 1953 years and counting.

So, it’d be better for Jesus to come before the destruction of the second temple.


Athetotheist wrote: Tue Sep 19, 2023 12:26 am Ezekiel preached the availability of forgiveness, and he didn’t even have a temple

The first temple was destroyed during the lifetime of Ezekiel.

Ezekiel began his prophetic ministry before Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed by Babylon in 586 BC. Prior to the destruction, many false prophets assured the people that God was with them and that nothing would happen to them (Ezekiel 13:8–16). True prophets like Jeremiah and Ezekiel warned the people that God’s judgment was coming (Ezekiel 2:3–8). In Ezekiel 8–11, the prophet sees the glory of God leaving the temple.


After the temple was destroyed, they would need to repent and change their ways in order to reestablish a relationship with God. But nowhere is the idea that a temple is no longer needed. Even Ezekiel mentions in detail what the future temple looked like starting in chapter 40.

Ezekiel’s Temple is an unbuilt temple structure described in the biblical Book of Ezekiel.

Maimonides called it “the temple that will be built” and qualified these chapters of Ezekiel as complex for the common reader and even for the seasoned scholar.

Some Christian interpretations of Ezekiel’s temple are: it is the temple that Zerubbabel should have built; a literal temple to be rebuilt during the millennial reign of Christ; a temple which is symbolic of the worship of God by the Christian church today; or a symbol of the future and eternal reign of God. A number of Christian commentators also believe that this temple will be a literal fourth temple, which will exist during the Millennial Kingdom, following the destruction of a future temple that will be desecrated by the Antichrist.[3][4][5][6] Other theorists instead see Ezekiel’s Temple as the New Jerusalem described in the book of Revelation; the bride of the Lamb (whose form and composite materials are similar to the Sanctuary); the Temple of God being the Christians themselves, where his Spirit will dwell in them (1 Corinthians 3:16).[7]


After the destruction of the first temple, prophets came preaching that the sacrifice of repentance is acceptable without a temple. If it was acceptable without the first temple, how has it not been acceptable without the second?

It was a requirement to restore a relationship with God, but it didn’t mean the temple was no longer needed. Why did they want to rebuild the second temple? Why are orthodox Jews seeking to build a third temple? Even for Christians, we believe there will be a temple in heaven. God and Jesus will be that temple.

[Rev 21:22 KJV] 22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.


Athetotheist wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 9:11 pm The building of the second temple set a precedent; if you lose the temple you can build it again, no Messiah required as a sacrifice.

Theoretically yes, but practically no. It’s been almost 2000 years with no temple rebuilt. How were the Jews able to have their sins atoned for during the past several millennia? They haven’t been able to according to Lev 16.

[Lev 16:34 KJV] 34 And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year.


Athetotheist wrote: Mon Sep 25, 2023 11:32 pm The Levitical sacrificial system is indeed heavily detailed, and the details show that blood sacrifice is not a universal requirement even when there is a temple.

What Rabbi Skobac talks about is a very special case:

[Lev 5:11 KJV] 11 But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put [any] frankincense thereon: for it [is] a sin offering.

This case is only for very poor people. And it was for a sin offering. A sin offering is only for unintentional sins.

This offered sacrifice accompanied the important required core means of atonement for the committing of an unintentional transgression of a prohibition, that either has brought guilt upon the ‘community of Israel’ or the individual.[3] This offering is brought during or after atonement for those transgressions that had been committed inadvertently, or in ignorance: intentional transgressions could only be absolved by other forms of atonement, or in severe cases kareth.



Athetotheist wrote: Tue Sep 26, 2023 10:58 pm How does someone “fulfill” a statute which is to be carried out every year by doing it only once?

The Levitical sacrifice was only a shadow of the reality of the ultimate sacrifice of the Son of God.

[Heb 10:1-2 NIV] 1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming–not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins.

Athetotheist wrote: Tue Sep 26, 2023 10:58 pm  How could Jesus’s blood redeem anyone at all when it was human blood (human sacrifice was forbidden)

I agree human blood cannot redeem anyone. However, he was not only human, but also divine.


Yes. He was a fulfillment of all the offerings. But most importantly, he was the fulfillment of the most holy offering, the Yom Kippur offering.

Does that mean that he was an offering for only unintentional sins?

The Yom Kippur covers all sins, both intentional and unintentional.

But the sacrifices on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) provided atonement for both intentional and unintentional sins, something taught emphatically in the Talmud and Law Codes. The Scriptures are clear on this, and Jewish tradition never questioned it.

https://www.jewishvoice.org/learn/theol … -continued

Where does the Torah say that the sacrificial system has an expiration date?

It doesn’t. And if you accept this, then Jews for the past 2000 years have not had their sins forgiven based on the Levitical sacrificial system.

For Christians, Jesus our High Priest is continually performing Yom Kippur. He shed his blood once, but in the Holy of Holies (which represents heaven), he is there continually interceding for us. He has never left the Holy of Holies and won’t do so until he comes back during the Second Coming.

[Rom 8:34 KJV] 34 Who [is] he that condemneth? [It is] Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

[Heb 7:25 KJV] 25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.


Athetotheist wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 10:08 pm When the second Temple was destroyed in the year 3830 from creation (70 CE), the Yom Kippur service continued. Instead of a High Priest bringing the sacrifices in Jerusalem, every single Jew performs the Yom Kippur service in the temple of his or her heart.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_ … Kippur.htm

What this shows is Christians are better able to follow Yom Kippur since for Jews they have no component of a blood sacrifice anymore. There is no fulfillment of the requirements of a high priest representing the entire nation during Yom Kippur as set out in the Torah.

Even more, there is no scapegoat ritual performed by the Jews. Whereas for Christians, Jesus is our scapegoat.

[Lev 16:10 HNV] 10 But the goat, on which the lot fell for the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make atonement for him, to send him away for the scapegoat into the wilderness.

As Ezekiel and Hosea indicated, no sacrificial Messiah required.

It doesn’t make any sense to completely discount the entire Levitical sacrificial system. If Jews do believe this, then they are the ones rejecting the Torah, not Christians.


Athetotheist wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 8:46 pm It was declared sufficient when they don’t have access to a temple.

I might grant that in the case of a temporary situation that spans decades. But it is another matter when it spans millennia.

[Lev 16:34 KJV] 34 And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses.

And the Jews have not resumed the sacrificial statutes for almost 2000 years after the destruction of the second temple. This is a longer period than when the Jews did follow the sacrificial requirements.


No, I don’t believe Ezekiel either had nullified the Levitical sacrifices. Where does he say it has been nullified?

Athetotheist wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2023 7:38 pm  That’s just it. He doesn’t say that it’s been nullified, yet he does say that acceptable sacrifice can be offered even without a temple.

Since the Levitical sacrifices has not been annulled, then I rest my case.