Rabbi (s),
Hello again to all of you here at the MT forums. It's been years since I last posted but the few that I talked with I remember as being kind and hospitable. It is for this reason that I feel I can come back and post a question with regard to the Mitzvot.
I am currently debating a xtian who, in an attempt to wedge his xtianity into the Torah, seeks to divide the Mitzvot into sacrificial MIitzvot and moral Mitzvot. To give a little background, this individual and I went to college together and after about 10 years he has found my email address. We have been exchanging emails. I have been raising question concerning his xtian faith and I have been using some of the counter-apologetic on this site. I sent him a question about whether or not jesus passes the sacrificial requirements based on the article "Blood Sacrifice." He has responded in typical fashion - divide the Mitzvot into two classes - sacrificial and moral. This allows him to slip in his xtian salvation doctrine; because no one can do the moral requirements the sacrifices were necessary and because the sacrifices were limited it was necessary for a final "perfect" one.
I have yet to respond to this email because there are so many levels on which to combat this idea. Before constructing another thesis email to him I thought I would pop over here and ask for the essential way in which to focus on this claim. My thoughts would be to attack the idea of there being a division between the sacrificial and moral Mitzvot. It seems to me that, due to his belief in the necessity of blood sacrifice for atonement (based on the wrongful interpretation found in the book of Hebrews), he feels he is right in dividing them this way. However, it is quite plain from reading the passage in Devarim (please forgive me if I spell some of these wrong) regarding blood atonement that the view is erroneous. What's more there are other Mitzvot which give the opportunity for atonement apart from a blood sacrifice. However, it seems to me that the most important idea is that of tzedikah or the giving to charity.
However, as I was typing out this email my mind wandered on the idea of one who is righteous or a tzedik. Doing the Mitzvot is a type of charity in itself - thus by doing them one's sin becomes "atoned for." Please knock this down if it's way off base. My aim here is to knock down my friends claim in two ways - undermine his idea that blood is necessary for atonement AND remove the artificial division of moral and sacrificial Mitzvot.
Ok, I think that's it in a nutshell. I appreciate any ideas you have.
Be Well,
Tim
Hello again to all of you here at the MT forums. It's been years since I last posted but the few that I talked with I remember as being kind and hospitable. It is for this reason that I feel I can come back and post a question with regard to the Mitzvot.
I am currently debating a xtian who, in an attempt to wedge his xtianity into the Torah, seeks to divide the Mitzvot into sacrificial MIitzvot and moral Mitzvot. To give a little background, this individual and I went to college together and after about 10 years he has found my email address. We have been exchanging emails. I have been raising question concerning his xtian faith and I have been using some of the counter-apologetic on this site. I sent him a question about whether or not jesus passes the sacrificial requirements based on the article "Blood Sacrifice." He has responded in typical fashion - divide the Mitzvot into two classes - sacrificial and moral. This allows him to slip in his xtian salvation doctrine; because no one can do the moral requirements the sacrifices were necessary and because the sacrifices were limited it was necessary for a final "perfect" one.
I have yet to respond to this email because there are so many levels on which to combat this idea. Before constructing another thesis email to him I thought I would pop over here and ask for the essential way in which to focus on this claim. My thoughts would be to attack the idea of there being a division between the sacrificial and moral Mitzvot. It seems to me that, due to his belief in the necessity of blood sacrifice for atonement (based on the wrongful interpretation found in the book of Hebrews), he feels he is right in dividing them this way. However, it is quite plain from reading the passage in Devarim (please forgive me if I spell some of these wrong) regarding blood atonement that the view is erroneous. What's more there are other Mitzvot which give the opportunity for atonement apart from a blood sacrifice. However, it seems to me that the most important idea is that of tzedikah or the giving to charity.
However, as I was typing out this email my mind wandered on the idea of one who is righteous or a tzedik. Doing the Mitzvot is a type of charity in itself - thus by doing them one's sin becomes "atoned for." Please knock this down if it's way off base. My aim here is to knock down my friends claim in two ways - undermine his idea that blood is necessary for atonement AND remove the artificial division of moral and sacrificial Mitzvot.
Ok, I think that's it in a nutshell. I appreciate any ideas you have.
Be Well,
Tim
