Shabbat Shalom Jason, thank you so much for letting me know your thinking. Let me first say that within Judaism, there has been many battles and debates over the millennia concerning what The Scriptures were actually saying. One such debate was the counting of the omer...which Shabbat did the counting start after. Even today there are different factions of Jews that disagree on whether it is the weekly Shabbat, or the High Day Shabbat. Also within Judaism, the sages disagreed upon the meaning of what it meant to "lay your hands upon the head of the offering." Some felt it was TRANSFERENCE, and some IDENTIFICATION. It appears that the transference side won out, which in turn influenced how the missionaries view what happens with the offering of their "Jesus."
They look at sacrifice as a means to TRANSFER the guilt and punishment of their sin, and that in turn, makes the atonement. I can tell you, that doctrine is hogwash. G-d does not need the shedding of innocent blood (either animal OR man) to make atonement. Those sages that felt the laying on of hands was a means for the sinner to IDENTIFY with the innocent sacrifice, and then as that animal was dying, the sinner was to be moved to put to death THEIR sin which caused them to kill the innocent animal, and that TURNING AWAY from sin (putting that sin to death), is what produced the atonement. TURNING from sin is what ATONES for sin, but the problem is that most would not value the death of an innocent animal to be sufficient enough to cause a turning away from sin. The mentality is that as long as you have enough animals to slaughter, you can get your sin atoned for, and this is what the missionaries TOOK from Judaism in how they view "Jesus" dying FOR their sin.
The doctrine of the missionaries is founded upon the influence of Judaism's substitutionary use of sacrifice, and that should not have been done. No where in the NT Scriptures does it say that a substitute died in the place of sinners. It does state the Lamb of G-d did die for the sins of the world. What does that mean? It you view sacrifice as a means to IDENTIFY with the Sacrifice, and then die WITH the Sacrifice, as that Sacrifice was dying FOR (because of) the sinners sin, THEN the sinner realizes that he/she can no longer REMAIN in active sin, and this is the TRUE meaning of how the Messiah can die "for" the sins of the world (to TAKE those sins AWAY from the life of a sinner/world).
The Foundation of the Torah (the ritual of the Red Heifer) details this process explicitly. This Ordinance was designed by G-d to SEPARATE a sinner FROM their sin, and to CLEANSE them from the defilement of death. The missionaries are clueless about what Moses WROTE, and they have corrupted the Truth about the Messiah dying FOR/BECAUSE OF the sins of the world. At least, this is my thinking on the issue. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.
They look at sacrifice as a means to TRANSFER the guilt and punishment of their sin, and that in turn, makes the atonement. I can tell you, that doctrine is hogwash. G-d does not need the shedding of innocent blood (either animal OR man) to make atonement. Those sages that felt the laying on of hands was a means for the sinner to IDENTIFY with the innocent sacrifice, and then as that animal was dying, the sinner was to be moved to put to death THEIR sin which caused them to kill the innocent animal, and that TURNING AWAY from sin (putting that sin to death), is what produced the atonement. TURNING from sin is what ATONES for sin, but the problem is that most would not value the death of an innocent animal to be sufficient enough to cause a turning away from sin. The mentality is that as long as you have enough animals to slaughter, you can get your sin atoned for, and this is what the missionaries TOOK from Judaism in how they view "Jesus" dying FOR their sin.
The doctrine of the missionaries is founded upon the influence of Judaism's substitutionary use of sacrifice, and that should not have been done. No where in the NT Scriptures does it say that a substitute died in the place of sinners. It does state the Lamb of G-d did die for the sins of the world. What does that mean? It you view sacrifice as a means to IDENTIFY with the Sacrifice, and then die WITH the Sacrifice, as that Sacrifice was dying FOR (because of) the sinners sin, THEN the sinner realizes that he/she can no longer REMAIN in active sin, and this is the TRUE meaning of how the Messiah can die "for" the sins of the world (to TAKE those sins AWAY from the life of a sinner/world).
The Foundation of the Torah (the ritual of the Red Heifer) details this process explicitly. This Ordinance was designed by G-d to SEPARATE a sinner FROM their sin, and to CLEANSE them from the defilement of death. The missionaries are clueless about what Moses WROTE, and they have corrupted the Truth about the Messiah dying FOR/BECAUSE OF the sins of the world. At least, this is my thinking on the issue. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.