An addendum to Rabbinic Dilemma 101

One objection that was brought to me by LimitBreak9001 which I have been meaning to address is the following:

"My point: //A. If both genealogies on the NT are Josephs, the two lines merged in one through Zerubabbel himself and seperated into two again.
B. If one genealogy is of Mary and one of Joseph, Zerubabbel is where the two lines meet and they seperate into two again.
Now one response was provided regarding this issue by saying this:
"condition A is the most supported by the NT narrative, and if we assume a virgin birth, Joseph's line would be irrelevant for obvious reasons. mary was most likely a Levite, if we take in to consideration the fact that her cousin elizabeth was mentioned as being a Levite. But either way, if condition A is true (which is most supported by the text of the NT) then all this demonstrates is that the NT writers contradict each other and that they have no competent understanding of how tribal heritage is passed down, that's the gist of the argument presented."//

LimitBreak's point: The reason why this demonstrates that they had no competent knowledge of how tribal heritage is passed down, is that there is no justification for adoption in the Tanach. Like I said before, where do we get this idea and how do we deal with it? We can make assumptions all we want, but from a practical standpoint, anyone could just argue that they were "adopted" by someone else and tribe swap whenever they please! The whole purpose of genealogical records for priests and kings was to demonstrate BIOLOGICAL PATRILINEAL DESCENT. Just think about it from a practical perspective. The Torah doesn't give any sort of Laws for "adoption" and how tribal heritage would work in that case, so your argument is at best, out of silence."

The verse in question was Ezra 2:62

"Ezra 2:62. These who traced their genealogy sought their records, but they were not found, and they were disqualified from the priesthood."

The main problem is that in the NT record, When Mary is visited by the angel who declared to her about the News of Jesus, she was already betrothed to Joseph, he himself a descendant of David. After their marriage ceremony, they would of consummated their marriage after Jesus' birth. If that is the case, then technically because of the marriage, Jesus does have a right to inherit by adoption. Joseph's family trees both connect to Zerubabbel as mentioned in a previous article.

Robert Gundry has an interesting perspective on this which I will share here:
""Because of Jesus' virginal conception and birth, the popular supposition that he was Joseph's biological son was false.

"As it was supposed" therefore calls attention Jesus' divine sonship via a virginal conception and birth. Nevertheless, Luke traces Jesus' genealogy through Joseph because of LEGAL RIGHTS, such as the right to David's throne, passed through the Father though he was only a foster father. (Page 237 Robert H. Gundry Commentary on the New Testament)"

"One the other hand, this passage explains how Jesus came to have the legal status of a descendant of David even though Joseph didn't father him: Joseph, himself a son [= a descendent] of David brought Jesus into David's line by taking Mary to wife prior to Jesus birth and by naming him at his birth(Page 3 Robert H. Gundry Commentary on the New Testament)"."

After thinking about it, it is not simply a case of adoption willy nilly, after all if that were the case, there is certainly is an allowance to have those who can't find their records be brought into adoption for Levitical service, which of course wasn't possible which I think Limitbreak is right on. I contend however, that the marriage of Mary and Joseph would certainly allow for adoption, considering Mary ALREADY bore Jesus in her womb before the marriage had taken place.

This I feel is a simpler argument than appealing to Zelophehad's daughter's regarding tribal lineage. The argument of Zelophehad's daughters is a stretch to be honest and it is something I would differ with many on. Not to mention with a reading of the text in context, I have struggled with the idea that Brown and others have proposed here.

Also, Most early objections to the virgin birth in patristic sources such as John Chrysostom are directed to the almah/bethulah issue, rather than to Jesus' conception disallowing Messianic privileges.
I am happy to recheck the patristic sources on request and post them in a separate article.

Feel free to check my words with the scriptures.

Answering Judaism.

Hebrew Scriptures refute Contra Brown: Examination of Isaiah 53:9 by Gassen Duu.

"“His grave is with the wicked,and his deaths are with the rich.” (Isaiah 53:9)
The servant of God is buried with the wicked, but the Christian scriptures tell us that Jesus was buried with the rich and not with the wicked. God’s servant is to die with the rich, yet the Christian scriptures tell us that Jesus did not die with the rich, but with the wicked. It is obvious that Isaiah did not have Jesus in mind when he uttered these words." - Contra Brown

Isaiah 53 (NKJV)
9 And they made His grave with the wicked— But with the rich at His death,

Because He had done no violence,
Nor was any deceit in His mouth.

Here we see an example of “grave” and "death”, being synonymous parallelism of the Hebrew Scriptures, mean the same thing.

Other examples:
Psalm 6:5
For in death there is no remembrance of You; In the grave who will give You thanks?

Psalm 49
14 Like sheep they are laid in the grave; Death shall feed on them; The upright shall have dominion over them in the morning; And their beauty shall be consumed in the grave, far from their dwelling.

Psalm 89
48 What man can live and not see death? Can he deliver his life from the power of thegrave?

Hosea 13
14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O Death, I will be your plagues! O Grave, I will be your destruction! Pity is hidden from My eyes.”

Poetic parallelism

Isaiah 53 is poetry in terms of it's form. Hebraic parallelism is used in Isaiah 53:9. I have given other examples of scriptures above.

You can see “grave” and “death” are synonymous parallelism in the verse.

Isaiah 53

9 And they made His grave קִבְרוֹ with the wicked—
But with the rich at His death בְּמֹתָיו,

Because He had done no violence,
Nor was any deceit in His mouth.

Another verse that demonstrates anonymous parallelism with these two words is

Psalm 88

5 Adrift among the dead בַּמֵּתִים
Like the slain who lie in the grave קֶבֶר,
Whom You remember no more,

Yeshua was sinless and He died with the wicked: His being innocent is given in statements “He had done no violence”, “Nor was any deceit in His mouth” (V.9),and His being wrongly accused and put to death with the wicked: “He poured out His soul unto death, And “He was numbered with the transgressors” (V.12).

The grave of the wicked was given to Him, but He ended up buried in the rich man’s tomb.

In Isaiah 53, we see the prophecy of the Righteous Servant being put to death with the wicked and buried in the tomb of the rich. Yeshua fulfilled the prophecy.

Whoever reads the whole chapter Isaiah 53 objectively cannot deny that it is Yeshua the Messiah being prophesied. Only hyper literalists are trying to pick faults from the minute details. The scriptures cited above refute them.

(All emphasis in scriptures is mine.)

Gassen Duu

Hebrews and Daniel contradictions?

There are some things that need to be put onto the table itself regarding certain issues. For example one comment that has often been seen is trying to pit Hebrews 7:12 and Daniel 7:25 against one another to try and say that Jesus stands condemned. Although I have been told that it’s not necessarily Jesus but a Christian Zealot or the writer to Hebrews. In any case, it certainly is not any of the three. Let’s go to Daniel 7, we’ll look at the context. You can find the whole of Daniel 7 in this article for the sake of convenience.

“7 In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream, and visions passed through his mind as he was lying in bed. He wrote down the substance of his dream.2 Daniel said: “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me were the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea. 3 Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea.4 “The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted from the ground so that it stood on two feet like a human being, and the mind of a human was given to it. 5 “And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear. It was raised up on one of its sides, and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. It was told, ‘Get up and eat your fill of flesh!’6 “After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.7 “After that, in my vision at night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast—terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns.8 “While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully.”
The first section shows the dream itself and what will happen, Pretty basic stuff. The four great beasts represent 4 kingdoms that will be around in the end of days.

“9 “As I looked, “thrones were set in place,
    and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
    the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
    and its wheels were all ablaze.
10 A river of fire was flowing,
    coming out from before him.
Thousands upon thousands attended him;
    ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.
The court was seated,
    and the books were opened.
11 “Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. 12 (The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time.) 13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”
The next reference speaks of the kingdoms of the earth with one being destroyed and the others spared for a time but not indefinitely. We are also introduced to a figure that comes before the Ancient of Days and is given an everlasting dominion over all the earth. This wouldn’t be a reference to Anti-Christ, because his reign would be short-lived. Jesus claims to be this son of man coming on the clouds of heaven in Mark 14 and alludes to it in other passages such as Mark 13 and Matthew 24. Even in those chapters, Jesus is alluding to the figure in Daniel as well as the abomination of desolation of Daniel 9, which is another topic neither here nor there.

“15 “I, Daniel, was troubled in spirit, and the visions that passed through my mind disturbed me. 16 I approached one of those standing there and asked him the meaning of all this. “So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things: 17 ‘The four great beasts are four kings that will rise from the earth. 18 But the holy people of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever.’
19 “Then I wanted to know the meaning of the fourth beast, which was different from all the others and most terrifying, with its iron teeth and bronze claws—the beast that crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. 20 I also wanted to know about the ten horns on its head and about the other horn that came up, before which three of them fell—the horn that looked more imposing than the others and that had eyes and a mouth that spoke boastfully. 21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the holy people and defeating them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the holy people of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.
23 “He gave me this explanation: ‘The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. 24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. 25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time.[b]
26 “‘But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. 27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.’
28 “This is the end of the matter. I, Daniel, was deeply troubled by my thoughts, and my face turned pale, but I kept the matter to myself.””

In the following context, The Son of Man is not the fourth beast spoken of in Daniel 7 itself. Verse 25 is commonly understood to be a reference to the Anti-Christ who will speak against the Most High and declare himself as God to which he is soundly dealt with and his kingdom is brought to ruin forever. Jesus will do this in the Book of Revelation at the Father’s command. He’ll come on the clouds of heaven in Revelation 19 to bring judgement to the whole earth, After all “the Father had entrusted all judgement to the Son” as Jesus said. One thing I can say about the section with the Holy People of the Most High, Those who believe in Christ will be co-heirs with him in heaven and the kingdom belongs to them, Jew and Gentile who have been washed by the blood of Jesus. The Kingdom is the property of the Father and the Son and the saints co reign with Christ.

Now looking at Hebrews 7, The chapter itself speaks of Melchizedek who is “Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.” This doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t have a genealogy obviously but we know from context that Melchizedek is portrayed as a type of Christ who was a high priest of the God most high and was a king of Salem or Jerusalem. Hebrews as a whole speaks of a better covenant and a better atonement, just a better everything. Hebrews 7:12 has no connection to Daniel 7:25 at all, It is simply talks about a superior priesthood that has already been ushered in by Christ, it doesn’t speak of the end of days within this context, so to make the connection to suggest that Christians or Jesus are those who oppress the holy people is quite frankly a far stretch.


Gill in his exposition has suggested the following regarding this passage:
“For the priesthood being changed,.... Not translated from one tribe, family, or order, to another, but utterly abolished; for though it is called an everlasting priesthood, yet that is to be understood with a limitation, as the word "everlasting" often is, as relating to things under that dispensation; for nothing is more certain than that it is done away: it was of right abrogated at the death of Christ, and it is now in fact; since the destruction of Jerusalem, the daily sacrifice has ceased, and the children of Israel have been many days without one, and without an ephod.”

That’s only part of it but it’s an interesting take and I shall post this below so you can look at it: (http://biblehub.com/hebrews/7-12.htm).

Hebrews 8 even speaks of the superiority of the New Covenant compared to the Old Covenant and that the Old Covenant points to the substance and that YHWH had promised a NEW covenant  to THE JEWS. I emphasise that point because of the bogus idea of replacement theology claiming that the covenant was made with the church, which the NT doesn't suggest even implicitly. The Jews are still the chosen people, but that will not save them. Nor does it mean that the church replaces Israel as the chosen people. This a patristic invention, not apostolic teaching. The Gentiles only "replace" the unbelieving Jews, not the believing ones. Also, if the Jews can be cut off, SO CAN THE GENTILES AS WELL!! If God has rejected the Jews because of their disobedience, the church even more so would have to be rejected considering the apostasy of most churches of the USA and Europe collectively.

Anyway, the point is, Jeremiah 31:31 makes it clear and Hebrews 8 quotes it that the covenant was made with the Jews and no one else. Those who want to be part of the covenant, have to be grafted in, which took place after the resurrection. The text itself may not mention the Gentiles, but the possiblity of the Gentiles being grafted in, is not out of the question, considering it is not like the covenant that was made at Sinai. Israel through the Messiah would come to know the God of Israel and not have to teach their neighbor about him.

Feel free to examine my words with scripture and check them out for yourself.

Thanks for reading.

Answering Judaism.

Response to Jono Vandor and Jason Spiritual Babies: Blood Atonement 2

The next point I will move onto is the subject of Exodus 24:8, Leviticus 14 and Hebrews 9:18-21. Jono Vandor and Jason Spiritual Babies in their video "Regarding all these words" were asserting that the writer had gotten the details wrong. Interestingly, there is a simple answer to this issue, provided by Robert Gundry in his commentary on the New Testament. He says on page 897 regarding this section the following:

"The record of it's inaugural ceremony in Exodus 24:8 lacks the element of water, used for cleansing. The addition  here of "water" to "the blood of calves and he-goats" points up by association the cleansing power of sacrificial blood whereas non-sacrificial blood blood stains rather than cleanses (see the comments on Revelation 7:14 for the oxymoron of blood that cleanses). The scarlet colour of the wool corresponds with the hyssop (a branchy plant) get mentioned as instruments for sprinkling "the blood of the covenant". Apperantly the woold was twisted into thread and used a string to tie together the branches of hyssop.

"All the people" occurs once in connection with Moses speaking "every commandment" and again in occurrence points up the obligation of everyone counted among God's people to obey every each commandment without exception. The second occurrence points to the privelage of everyone sprinkled to be counted among God's people. The sprinkling also of the book containing every commandment in the Law that book and all the people under "the blood of the covenant that God has commanded you" (As Moses puts it). "Has commanded" reprises the legislative character of the covenant. The similiar blood sprinkling of "both the tent and all the utensils for religious service" brings under the covenant subsequent sacrifices for transgressions of God's commandments, as indicated by the closing statement "without the pouring out of blood forgiveness doesn't happen." Exodus 24:3-8 says that Moses sprinkled sacrificial blood on the altar and the people but doesn't say that he sprinkled it on the book of the laws, the tent, and "all the utensils for religious service" (Although compare Leviticus 14:1-9)

Our author however includes the altar among the utensils and adds the book and the tent for the aforementoin purpose of bringing as many things as he can of the first covenant under sacrifical blood (compare Exodus 12:22; Leviticus 8:15-19; 14:4) "Almost all things are cleansed with blood" leaves room, however for the "heifer's ashes" as a cleansing agent when mixed with water (9:13 [see also Leviticus 5:11-13; 15:10; 16:26, 28; 22:6; Numbers 19:1-22; 31:21-24]). The blood of sacrificial animals effected the "forgiveness" of ritual impurity but couldn't effect the forgiveness of transgressions (see especially 10:3-4, 11)

So "the pouring out of blood" in the case of those animals prefigured the shedding of Jesus' blood, which has effected forgiveness. Pouring out alludes to the draining of the animals blood after it's throat has been slit (compare Leviticus 17), which practice prefigures the shedding of Jesus blood."

I will also add though Jesus throat wasn't slit, it was more to do with his blood being poured out that is compared to the animal being slain, considering the NT records Jesus being scourged with a whip in the Gospels, thus his back would of been raw with blood.

I hope this article has been of assistance to you.

Response to Jono Vandor and Jason Spiritual Babies: Blood Atonement

Once again another set of texts that I want to deal with regarding atonement. This article is going to address some of the texts that Jono Vandor and JasonSpiritualBabies raise. Let's take a look at some of the texts, although some I won't touch due to other articles dealing with those particular texts. I'll focus on the texts they quote from the Old Testament to back up their points.

Nehemiah 1:9

"9 but if you return to me and obey my commands, then even if your exiled people are at the farthest horizon, I will gather them from there and bring them to the place I have chosen as a dwelling for my Name.’"

Regarding this first text, it doesn't speak of the atonement of the Israelites. Although it does speak of a restoration of Israel if there is a return to the LORD. There isn't any need to speak of atonement in the verse because it is not the issue. Nehemiah is alluding Deuteronomy 30.

Joel 2:12

"12 “Even now,” declares the Lord,

    “return to me with all your heart,

    with fasting and weeping and mourning.”"

This text is similiar to Jeremiah 36:3 that sacrifices are not HaShem's point, he is exhorting his people to repent of their evil ways and to seek his favour. There is no need to mention blood atonement in every single passage when repentance is mentioned because it is not HaShem's point in the first place 
in those contexts, those are not his concern but it doesn't prove atonement without blood.

Psalm 130:3-4

"3 If you, Lord, kept a record of sins,

    Lord, who could stand?

4 But with you there is forgiveness,

    so that we can, with reverence, serve you."

This speaks of the overwelming mercy of HaShem, like the previous passage, atonement is not an issue that is raised in the passage. It speaks of his forgiveness and his love that he has for his people but there isn't need to mention blood atonement because the person is once again, not focused on that issue.

Micah 7:18-19

"18 Who is a God like you,

    who pardons sin and forgives the transgression

    of the remnant of his inheritance?

You do not stay angry forever

    but delight to show mercy.

19 You will again have compassion on us;

    you will tread our sins underfoot

    and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea."

Another text that speaks of God's mercy to those who earnestly humble themselves and turn to him in repentance. It also speaks of God's character as one who is wanting to forgive us for our transgression.

Numbers 14:19

"17 “Now may the Lord’s strength be displayed, just as you have declared: 18 ‘The Lord is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.’ 19 In accordance with your great love, forgive the sin of these people, just as you have pardoned them from the time they left Egypt until now.”"

This is simply Moses' intercession for the people Israel and averting God's wrath away from them, that's all there is to it.

Jeremiah 2

No actual verse was cited regarding atonement, repentance or anything like that. If I am missing something here, please let me know.

Jeremiah 4:1-2

 "4 “If you, Israel, will return,

    then return to me,”

declares the Lord.

“If you put your detestable idols out of my sight

    and no longer go astray,

2 and if in a truthful, just and righteous way

    you swear, ‘As surely as the Lord lives,’

then the nations will invoke blessings by him

    and in him they will boast.”"

Bare one thing in mind is that this is before the exile, the temple still stood in Jeremiah's day and besides, atonement is not the point that YHWH is trying to get across. He is demanding the people of Israel to return to him.

Jeremiah 24:7

"7 I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the Lord. They will be my people, and I will be their God, for they will return to me with all their heart."

In this context, HaShem is watching over the rightous remnant of the exiles who are in the land of their enemies and will bring them back. Of course the people are in diaspora so it is understandable that they would not be able to make a sacrifice at the temple. Another argument that could be made as with individuals like Daniel, they may have also looked forward to the Messiah's future atonement. However, That is another issue which I mention in my response to Eli Cohen so I needn't go into much here.

Isaiah 44:22

"22 I have swept away your offenses like a cloud,

    your sins like the morning mist.

Return to me,

    for I have redeemed you.”"

Atonement needn't be mentioned every single time when forgiveness and repentance is mentioned. The same happens when it comes to sin, YHWH speaks generally of the sins of the people, he doesn't mention EVERY law. Since that is the case, he needn't always mention specific details every single time repentance is mentioned. That is the same thing with this topic as with the topic of sin.

Isaiah 55:7

"7 Let the wicked forsake their ways

    and the unrighteous their thoughts.

Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them,

    and to our God, for he will freely pardon."

The text doesn't address atonement either, though I can say about this, Christians have often pointed to this text to show that No matter what you have done, Christ will cleanse you from those sins by his blood and you may be pardoned. This is used by us to show one can be forgiven no matter how big or how small your sin. 

Ezekiel 18

Israel is in diaspora with no temple to atone for them, as for the subject of the chapter, it no doubt deals with sins committed by those of the righteous and the wicked and what will happen if one or the other goes off into the opposite point they once held. 

Genesis 4:15

"15 But the Lord said to him, “Not so[e]; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him."

WOW, Complete eisegesis of the text, this doesn't even speak of atonement or repentance at all. Not really much to comment on this text at all except, Such mandhandling. Not to mention Cain certainly did not amend his ways.

Zechariah 1:3

"3 Therefore say to them, Thus declares the Lord of hosts: Return to me, says the Lord of hosts, and I will return to you, says the Lord of hosts."

Simply an exhortation to repent and seek the favour of the LORD, no need to mention blood here.

Exodus 34:6-7

"6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”"

AMEN to the whole text, HaShem affirming his very character, Remember, HaShem is God, forever the same, he never changes, the same goes for Yeshua who himself is HaShem, but is not the Father. However the Trinity is another issue which I have covered in depth in other videos. Anyway, the text itself within the given context is not addressing blood atonement as has been said many times before in the past.

Other texts like Numbers 16:47, Hosea 14:2, and Proverbs 28:13 so those won't be mentioned and once again the text in 2 Chronicles 7:14 already taken care of in my response to Eli Cohen: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-rabbi-eli-cohen-on-blood.html.

The text in Jonah 3 may be addressed in a future article.

As for Numbers 31:50, that was a one time action, the same thing with Isaiah 6:6-7. If these two other means of atonement, I wonder why these options aren't considered today by Jews? Very strange.

As I mentioned in the past regarding Daniel and Abraham that they were saved by responding to the Revelation that was given to them. Regardless of the vision being different, they nevertheless point to a Messianic application. Daniel 9 speaks of the anointed one who is cut off and Abraham is told that all nations will be blessed through him, which Paul quotes in the New Testament in his letter to the Galatians because of their faith, and that faith is in the Messiah. Regardless of the different nature of the visions, it is what they point to that counts.

I shall address their point on Hebrews 9:18-22, Leviticus 14 and Exodus 24:3-8 in another article.

Response to Rabbi Asher Meza: Blood Atonement texts

Firstly, I want to look at some texts that have a close connection to each other in terms of the phrase "mercy not sacrifice." This can be found in:

Psalm 51:16 You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;

    you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.

17 My sacrifice, O God, is[b] a broken spirit;

    a broken and contrite heart

    you, God, will not despise.

Psalm 40:6 Sacrifice and offering you did not desire—

    but my ears you have opened[c]—

    burnt offerings and sin offerings[d] you did not require.

Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,

    and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

These three texts do not suggest that God is against sacrifices in and of themselves nor a denial of them. In fact Samuel said to obey God's voice is better than many sacrifices but this is not a denial of sacrifice. Although God prefers to have our constant unflinching obedience, these texts don't suggest what my Rabbinic friend is suggesting.

Psalm 34:18 The Lord is close to the brokenhearted

    and saves those who are crushed in spirit.

Amen to that text, but why quote this text? Sacrifices don't have to be constantly mentioned every single time. The Psalm is about David speaking about the goodness of the LORD to those who seek him and love him. Thus, sacrifices are not relevant to the context of this passage whatsoever.

Proverbs 28:13 Whoever conceals their sins does not prosper,

    but the one who confesses and renounces them finds mercy.

I think every person is aware of this principle all to well and it is a true statement. Like Psalm 34, sacrifices are not relevant to the point the writer is trying to make. The verse itself is a warning to us to admit our wrongdoing and turn from it, After all, in Psalm 32, David comments on how he wasted away because he didn't confess his sins (And hyper-grace people come up with this rubbish of not needing to). How this verse once again proves the point of my Rabbinic friend I don't know.

Some of the texts that the Rabbi quotes include these:

Micah 6:6 With what shall I come before the Lord

    and bow down before the exalted God?

Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,

    with calves a year old?

Jeremiah 7:22 For when I brought your ancestors out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, 23 but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in obedience to all I command you, that it may go well with you.

First, it is important to understand why this is mentioned, In both texts, the reason the Lord was displeased with the sacrifices was because the people were delibrately abusing the sacrificial system so they could live in sin. The sacrifices were rendered unacceptable because there was no repentance accompanying them. Without repentance, a sacrifice is useless, which even the New Testament and the Talmud affirm.

NT referrence

Hebrews  10:26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Talmudic Referrence http://halakhah.com/pdf/moed/Yoma.pdf

Talmud - Mas. Yoma 87a

I SHALL SIN AND THE DAY OF ATONEMENT SHALL PROCURE ATONEMENT; THEN

THE DAY OF ATONEMENT DOES NOT PROCURE ATONEMENT. Shall we say that our Mishnah is not in accord with Rabbi, for Rabbi said: It was taught, For all transgressions of Biblical commandments, whether he repented or not, whether positive or negative, does the Day of Atonement procure atonement? — You may even say it will be in agreement with Rabbi. It is different when he relies on it.

Both referrences I have provided show that repentance is required for a sacrifice to work. My point is, it was the abuse of the sacrifice that God was condemning in Jeremiah 7 and Micah 6.

The next texts are Hosea 14 and 1 Kings 8:38.

Hosea 14:2 Take words with you

    and return to the Lord.

Say to him:

    “Forgive all our sins

and receive us graciously,

    that we may offer the fruit of our lips.[b]

1 Kings 8:37 “When famine or plague comes to the land, or blight or mildew, locusts or grasshoppers, or when an enemy besieges them in any of their cities, whatever disaster or disease may come, 38 and when a prayer or plea is made by anyone among your people Israel—being aware of the afflictions of their own hearts, and spreading out their hands toward this temple— 39 then hear from heaven, your dwelling place. Forgive and act; deal with everyone according to all they do, since you know their hearts (for you alone know every human heart), 40 so that they will fear you all the time they live in the land you gave our ancestors.

In the following article, although the text is 2 Chronicles 7:14, the same principle applies.

http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-rabbi-eli-cohen-on-blood.html

Numbers 16:47

46 Then Moses said to Aaron, “Take your censer and put incense in it, along with burning coals from the altar, and hurry to the assembly to make atonement for them. Wrath has come out from the Lord; the plague has started.” 47 So Aaron did as Moses said, and ran into the midst of the assembly. The plague had already started among the people, but Aaron offered the incense and made atonement for them. 48 He stood between the living and the dead, and the plague stopped. 49 But 14,700 people died from the plague, in addition to those who had died because of Korah. 50 Then Aaron returned to Moses at the entrance to the tent of meeting, for the plague had stopped.[c]

This is a text used by Meza to suggest that incense can be used as atonement for sin in this passage.

There is one explain that can be provided regarding this. 

It is simply an aversion of God's judgement and a ONE TIME event in the context itself. That's all it is. It is Moses telling Aaron how to avert God's judgement. It is simliar to Daniel 4:27.

I hope to address Leviticus 5:11-13 in a future article.

Job 33:26

then that person can pray to God and find favor with him,

    they will see God’s face and shout for joy;

    he will restore them to full well-being.

This particular chapter doesn't raise the issue of atonement within the context of the chapter, nor is the issue of sacrifice raised, as it is not relevant to Elihu's point of seeking God again. This goes back to an earlier point I made about Psalm 34 and Proverbs 28.

Another text he raises in the video is Leviticus 5:11-13, which has been addressed here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/quick-examination-of-hebrews-922-104.html

I hope that this video has provided an adequate response to Asher Meza and hope this has been a blessing for you. One thing I ask you, I URGE YOU, CHECK WHAT I AM SAYING OUT WITH OTHERS, Don't simply take my word of it, and don't take those who I have quoted as your gurus, study the truth for yourselves and see if what I am saying stands the test of truth. 

Thanks for taking the time to read.