Sami Zaatari, the writer of Muslim Responses.com has in the past tried to imply by misrepresenting Sam Shamoun (Shamoun corrects that misrepresentation of his words here: http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zaatari/forgiven_without_cross.html) and even Rabbinic Jews have tried to say that due to Jesus forgiving people, such as the paralysed man and the woman caught in adultery, it stands to reason that Hebrews 9:22 is refuted by Jesus and that blood isn't required.
This is to be honest a dishonest and a blatantly deceptive assertion to make.
Those who make this argument fail to mention the following facts whenever they raise this objection.
Considering the Mosaic Law was in effect when Jesus was on earth, when he forgave someone, it should be noted that the person would have made an offering at the temple for their guilt. Although adultery was a capital offence, it should also be taken into consideration that the woman was let off with a warning and also note the Pharisees did not bring the adulterer as well which is required in Deuteronomy 22:22
"22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel."
The offerings that were made at the temple in the time of Jesus and were effective until his death on the cross, which is when he ultimately pays for the persons iniquities and then "by his stripes we are healed" (Isaiah 53:5). These points are often overlooked when this objection is presented and is a deceptive mishandling of the NT text.
Also, in my response to Rabbi Eli Cohen on Blood Atonement I have said the following:
"Next, Cohen goes on to speak about the first temple's destruction and what to do if temple sacrifices are not able to be carried out due to exile. What are they to do he asks? Also, he asked "How did Daniel have his sins forgiven". Well, the NT provides the answer that the lamb was SLAIN BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORD (Revelation 13:8), not to mention when you Read Romans 4, Abraham was saved as a result of his faith, it was credited to him as rightousness.
Hebrews 11 comments on the faith of the OT saints that they were commended for and that they had not recieved the promise since something else had been planned, Namely our redemption in the Messiah. Daniel was saved by his faith in the coming of the Messiah. William Lane Craig provided a response to Tovia Singer regarding how the OT saints were saved without knowledge of the Trinity (which does tie in with Daniel being covered by Christ's atonement). Lane Craig said:
"They're saved by responding to the revelation that God had given to them, and if they respond in an appropriate way, Then according to the NT, God applies to them the benefits of Christ's atoning death, so they are saved through Christ even though they have no conscious knowledge of Christ,because they respond to the revelation that God has given to them".
So the point about Daniel having no atonement and only had prayer in the context of Daniel 9, is a moot point.
Don't forget also Daniel recieves a vision of the 70 weeks found in Daniel 9:24-27 about the anointed one who is cut off and as Christians will assert refers to Jesus being cut off at Mt Golgotha or Calvary. I won't be speaking on the nature of Daniel 9:24-27 since that isn't the focus."
Hopefully this article has been a blessing to you.