Do you think a soul that is full of sin can enter heaven? Of course not. That's why the soul must be cleansed and that's the messiah's job as illustrated in Isaiah 53.
Yes, the term originates in the New Testament to describe people who oppose Jesus being the Messiah and the Son of God. If the shoe fits wear it.
Certain non-blood offerings made atonement for certain things, but there is a reason that the high priest had to enter the holy of holies once a year to make a blood atonement for the soul as Leviticus 17:11 describes. That offering is for the soul. It was made in the portion of the tabernacle that was designated to represent heaven and the presence of God.
Yes, obedience procures God's blessings. But the only way sins can be forgiven is through blood atonement in the temple at that time. They were to repent and receive that atonement from the priest. The people did not repent, the temple was destroyed and they went into captivity. This text shows that their profunctory offerings were not acceptable if their actions were continuously sinful. This show that any form of legalistic obedience to the law is worthless and not acceptable by God unless it is accompanied by true reformation.
According to what was given to Moses, the once a year sacrifice by the priest in the Holy of Holies was for all the sins of the priest and the people.
They saw Him as the first light of creation, and as a result we get this quote from Pesikhta Rabbati 62,1 - "Whose is this light which falls upon the congregation of the lord?" and answers, "It is the light of the Messiah." This was read in the 9th century in connection with the feast days.
There is nothing in the Old Testament or the early Rabbinical writings that support two Messiahs.
Numbers 16:46 - Aaron was to take the censer with fire and incense and then make atonement. The fire and incense are symbols of prayer. Aaron was being told to pray before the Lord, to make intercession for the people and the word atonement is used in this sense. This was for a specific situation that required God's intervention to prevent physical disaster. It was not an atonement made for the soul, and would not replace the once a year sacrifice for the soul.
You're just going to ignore the fact that in the passage I quoted, God explicitly states that blood sacrifice is worthless to Him? Rather He wants people to cease to sin and if they do so, their sins will be cleansed - not just cleansed, but made " as white as snow" ?
Yep, insincere repentance or sacrifices does nothing.
It's a made up term with no basis in Tanakh. Psalm 2 shows the nations, including Christianity, fight against the anointed.
Both teach abrogation. If they didn't, you'd be observant.
That's not true. Numbers 15 shows all sins are not covered.
Doesn't say that.
Isaiah 53 is specifically to Israel, not the nations.
Yep, you'd better join, Isaiah 56:1-8.
Doesn't say he's God. Can you provide a link?
Daniel 9 has two, and there are many called anointed. We've been over this.
The *primary* description of the Messiah is that he is the one who will rule during the messianic age. If you lose sight of that, if you place that as subordinate to any other feature, you will go awry.
It doesn't say that. It says atonement period. Please do not add to the text. It's a very bad idea.
You are acting like Yom Kippur somehow negates the fact that these are atonement offerings. It doesn't. Ready to concede?
It does in the sense that the once a year atonement was designed to be the offering that makes the soul acceptable to God after death. None of those other "atonements" are designed to accomplish what the Leviticus 17:11 soul offering was designed to do. This is turn relates back to all the other foreshadows, including the instigation of God's plan of atonement for the soul in Genesis 3:21.
Its not the same as the atonement made by the high priest once a year.