The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Without blood there is no atonement for sins.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 261 times Debate No: 85597
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




In this debate, I will argue that the Jewish people in the time of Jesus were forbiden to worship Jesus as God nor accepting him as their messiah.

Round 1 - Acceptance, Opening Statements, and Questions Only
Round 2 - Opening Arguments Only (No rebuttals)
Round 3 - Rebuttals Only
Round 4 - Counter-Rebuttals
Round 5 - Closing Arguments and Closing Statements

I ask that whoever accepts this debate is a Christian. The Hebrew Bible is in this debate is the only authoritative book, as in the time of Jesus, the New Testament was not written.

Serious debater only.


I do accept this Debate.

There was/is nothing more Jewish than accepting Jesus as their messiah.
Debate Round No. 1


"There was/is nothing more Jewish than accepting Jesus as their messiah."

I might challenge you on that one later... but first thing first, let's start with this debate :)

I would first like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

According to the book of Hebrews "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Hebrews 9:22. Thus if we believe the New Testament to be inspired, this statement is true. But the New Testament can only be proven true if it is consistent with the Hebrew Bible. And the New Testament can be proven false if it contradicts the Hebrew Bible.

Does the writer of Hebrews take that Bible verse from the Hebrew Bible? Not really. He actually misquoted Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life." It does not say that blood is mandatory for sin atonement, but the blood is used for atoning for sins.

In fact, if you look at the Verse in context, it does not talk about atonement whatsoever, it talks about what is forbidden to eat and only talks about the blood of animals. ""I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people. 11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one"s life. Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood."

As Leveticus 17 does not say that blood is required for atonement, but only use for atonement, we only need one instance in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) that shows that blood is not required to prove the New Testament wrong.

"But if he is not able to bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, then he who sinned shall bring for his offering one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a sin offering. He shall put no oil on it, nor shall he put frankincense on it, for it is a sin offering. 12 Then he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as a memorial portion, and burn it on the altar according to the offerings made by fire to the Lord. It is a sin offering. 13 The priest shall make atonement for him, for his sin that he has committed in any of these matters; and it shall be forgiven him. The rest shall be the priest"s as a grain offering."" Levticus 5:11-13

So here, plain and simple someone could have bring fine flour and his sins would be atoned.

There are other example in the Bible that I could use, but only one is really needed.

I would like to turn our attention to Daniel. Daniel was Righteous as per Ezekiel 14:14 "Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, said the Lord GOD." But, the problem is, Daniel never brought sin offerings to G-d. The Temple was destroyed when Daniel was still a child or youth. And since, no blood was shed how could he have been considered righteous. My opponent will tell you that Jesus blood covered his sins, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished. But this is not what the Hebrew Bible teaches. In fact, the Bible teaches that no Blood is needed. In the time of Ezekiel and Daniel, the Jewish People did not have a Temple, nevertheless, Ezekiel told them how to be righteous.

Ezekiel 18 says ""Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father As well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die."

If we use this very verse, we can learn two things. First, the person that sins shall die. Second, someone else cannot pay the price for your sins. Thus Jesus blood is of no use for you.

For the first problem, we can find out how to be consider just before G-d by continuing reading Ezekiel 18

"21 But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?" says the Lord God, "and not that he should turn from his ways and live?"

Again, no atonement was required. But my opponent will tell you that G-d would not be right to forgive sins like that. That G-d would not be just to do so...

"25 Yet you say, "The way of the Lord is not fair." Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? 27 When a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. 28 Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 29 Yet the house of Israel says, "The way of the Lord is not fair." O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair?"

So G-d is fair and right to forgive without Blood.

Finally, I would like to add that only animal that were sacrificed on the altar according to what G-d ordained can be used for atonement for sins. Jesus blood could not in any way be used for atonement. Leviticus 17, the same chapter that says that blood is used for atonement also say: ""Whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice, 9 and does not bring it to the door of the tabernacle of meeting, to offer it to the Lord, that man shall be cut off from among his people."

Jesus was killed at Golgotha as the writer of Hebrews say "And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood."

This contradict the requirements of G-d for Sacrifices, so Jesus "sacrifice" was in no way useful for remission of sin.

Thank you.


In my argument i will show how blood sacrifices are required for the atonement for all the sins of all men.

Being clean is the result of repentance and coming under atoning death and shed blood on the Day of Atonement. The only way to be clean before the holy God of Israel is strongly found in Leviticus 16 and 17 during the Day of Atonement. Its important to note the word ALL here in these few verses literally means ALL not just for unintentional sins.
Leviticus 16:9 "And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD'S lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering.
(15) Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:
(16) And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel , and because of their transgressions in ALL their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.
Leviticus 16: 30 "For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from ALL your sins before the LORD. (31) It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever. (33) And he shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar, and he shall make an atonement for the priests, and for ALL the people of the congregation. (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..."
These verses set the precedent for what will be seen in Leviticus 17. The only way one can be cleansed is by shed blood, and notice in verse 34 that their sins were only atoned for, for just one year. We will see later how the death of the Messiah completely cleanses our sins not just for a year but for eternity.

Leviticus 17:11makes the a distinction of what the blood sacrifice was used for. A common objection to this verse, as my opponent used, is that the verse is only talking about eating blood and food laws. In part that is true but the whole purpose of God saying that was to show what the blood was actually meant for which was the atonement for sin. My opponent goes as far to say the " it(referring toLev 17:11) does not talk about atonement whatsoever" Im curious as to why this was said when copying the verse making atonement for sins was used TWICE just in that one verse. The verse makes the distinction of what the use of the blood was used for, which was the atonement and not for eating.

Now why did Jesus have to die? Was Jesus a normal man? I would say according to Jesus's words, life and His claims that He was the One true God that He was not just a normal man but God in human form. We can debate that at another time if you would like but with that i would like to show how Christ takes away our sins.

Jesus was often referred to in metaphors to represent what was used in the Old Covenant, like when he refers to himself as "The Door" in John 10:9, but takes them to a higher level. In John 1:29 Jesus referred to as the "Lamb of God" "29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" Jesus like the lamb in the Old covenant was watched and was spotless (Hebrews 4:15 ..."But was in all points tempted like we are, yet without sin). Jesus' death was a picture of sacrifice that was used with lambs in the Old covenant but to a greater degree. In Leviticus the sins were only covered for one year but the book of Hebrews shows us how much more effective the blood from the "The Lamb of God" is.

Hebrews 9:12 "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."

Hebrews 13:20 "Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,"

This New Covenant which was prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34 was vastly different in the duration. We saw in Leviticus 16 that it was only for one year but we saw in Hebrews that it was meant to be eternal but read what Jeremiah prophesied:
"31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

In verse number 34 the sins would be remembered "no more" which is exactly what Christ had accomplished when He shed His blood for atonement.
Debate Round No. 2


Let us first see the Day of Atonement in context:

It is true that the first goat was used as a sin offering. But consider the second goat. The sins of the people are laid on the second goat and that specific goat shall bear the iniquity of the people. As the book of Hebrew says "But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance." So the first goat, could be interpreted as being killed and sacrifice for purification of the Holy Place and for the unintentional sins of the people

20 "And when he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place, the tabernacle of meeting, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat. 21 Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man. 22 The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to an uninhabited land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness.

And as for the second goat, he carries the intentional sins of the people in the wilderness without shedding blood. Furthermore Daniel, who was considered righteous never offer any Yom Kippur offering and thus was consider righteous without blood and without the Day of atonement sacrifice.

" My opponent goes as far to say the " it (referring to Lev 17:11) does not talk about atonement whatsoever""
I meant that the context talks about food and not atonement, not that atonement is not mentioned, sorry if I was not clear about that.

Jesus was often referred to in metaphors to represent what was used in the Old Covenant,
Metaphors should not be used, the law is not a shadow or type. G-d asked the Jewish people to do exactly as prescribed and not to turn to the right or to the left...
"Be strong and very courageous. Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go." Joshua 1:7
Remember what happened to Aaron's son who did not follow what G-d told them. What would G-d ask us to trust in a sacrifice that was not mandate by Him in His words.

"Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"
Again, interestedly enough, no Male sheep were ever offered as a sin offering.

"Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."
Only animal blood is clean. Men's blood is not clean. Dead human corps are the worst unclean thing that could be as per the Law of G-d. "Whoever touches a human corpse will be unclean for seven days. Number 19:11

That's what G-d thinks about human sacrifices:
Jeremiah 19:4-5: For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods; they have burned sacrifices in it to gods that neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal - something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.

New Covenant: this is another topic, but as per Jeremiah, this has not happened yet.
I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbour and each his brother, saying, "Know the Lord," for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord.

Finally, as we saw in our previous round, Flour is used for atonement. If flour is used once, then blood is not always needed, thus the book of Hebrews is wrong.


WCBC15 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by CapAhab 9 months ago
Christianity is a bloody religion indeed. Here for your information, Oneseedykiwi, Jesus, as per Christian needed to die and shed his blood to atone for your sin and for you to go to heaven. I debate that it is not the case as per the Hebrew Scriptures, that both Judaism and Christianity believe. Nothing funny about that...
Posted by Oneseedykiwi 9 months ago
why is this in the funny section
No votes have been placed for this debate.