Perceptions: Jesus had a form!

The Torah says (Deut. 4):

The L-rd spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of the words, but saw no image, just a voice.And He told you His covenant, which He commanded you to do, the Ten Commandments, and He inscribed them on two stone tablets. And the L-rd commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and ordinances, so that you should do them in the land to which you are crossing, to possess. And you shall watch yourselves very well, for you did not see any image on the day that the L-rd spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. Lest you become corrupt and make for yourselves a graven image, the representation of any form, the likeness of male or female.

The Torah says it very clearly. (1) G-d spoke, but nothing was seen, and (2) this was because G-d did not want to be compared to anything that has a form, and example would be a "male or female". Therefore:

If G-d does not want to be represented by any form, than Jesus must be false if he is considered a 'god' since Jesus had a form!

Misconceptions: Josephus proves that Jesus existed

Christians love to point out that Josephus, a Jew, wrote about Jesus, thereby validating the historical existence of Jesus.

However, the part in Flavius Josephus about Jesus was placed there much later, after Josephus’ death, by Christians. The alleged Josephus' reference to Jesus in the Testimonium Flavianum may be translated from the Greek as follows:

"At this time there was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising works, (and) a teacher of people who with pleasure received the unusual. He stirred up both many Jews and many of Greeks. He was the Christ. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, since he was accused by the first-rate men among us, those who had been living (him from) the first did not cease (to cause trouble), for he appeared to them on the third day, having life again, as the prophets of God had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him. And until now the tribe of Christians, so named from him, is not (yet?) extinct." Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Bk XVIII, Ch III, Sn 3

The knowledge here compresses the kerygma, the earliest formulation of the Christian message by the author of the Gospel of Mark and the apostle Paul. However, because it has an explicit acceptance of Jesus as Messiah [Christ] and of his resurrection, almost all scholars believe that this passage is a Christian interpolation AND thereby a forgery. There are some scholars who believe that the core of it is original, and Christians added only the parts acknowledging Jesus as Messiah and the reality of resurrection.

“Probably the most damning evidence against the Josephus passages is that the two interpolated passages do not appear in Origen's second-century version of Antiquities. Origin was locked in a fierce debate with the Platonic philosopher Celsus over the merits of Christianity in Origen Contra Celsum (Origen against Celsus) and although Origen quotes freely from Antiquities to support Christianity, he never once used either of these passages instead remarking that 'Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ.'" - James Still, "Biblical and Extra-biblical Sources for Jesus"

"For more than two hundred years, the Christian Fathers who were familiar with the works of Josephus knew nothing of this passage. Had the passage been in the works of Josephus which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen and Clement of Alexandria would have been eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies. But it did not exist. Indeed, Origen, who knew his Josephus well, expressly affirmed that that writer had not acknowledged Christ. This passage first appeared in the writings of the Christian Father Eusebius, the first historian of Christianity, early in the fourth century; and it is believed that he was its author. Eusebius, who not only advocated fraud in the interest of the faith, but who is known to have tampered with passages in the works of Josephus and several other writers, introduces this passage:" - Marshall J. Gauvin, "Did Jesus Christ Really Live?" "Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness." - Eusebius, Evangelical Demonstration, Book III., p.124

"Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage [Testimonium Flavianum]. It is written in the style of Eusebius, and not in the style of Josephus. Josephus was a voluminous writer. He wrote extensively about men of minor importance. The brevity of this reference to Christ is, therefore, a strong argument for its falsity. This passage interrupts the narrative. It has nothing to do with what precedes or what follows it; and its position clearly shows that the text of the historian has been separated by a later hand to give it room." Marshall J. Gauvin, "Did Jesus Christ Really Live?"

After Josephus died, his writings were gone over by the early church with a fine tooth and comb.

As Eusebius was so famous of doing, there would be no doubt that any literature that needed to be changed to justify the Church’s concept of Jesus would indeed be changed, colored and flavored.

And who were alive then that had knowledge of Josephus’ writings to challenge Eusebius? Even Josephus couldn’t defend his own writings.

So using Josephus, to say anything about Jesus is scholarly absolutely not valid.

http://jdstone.org/cr/files/josephuscouldnotdefendhimself.html

Refutation: Leviticus 17:11 claims

Leviticus 17:11 is often cited to "prove" that blood atonement is needed to atone for sins. The KJV translates it like this: For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

This interpretation has problems. First, the passage does not say that blood is the only means to atone for souls, and, in fact, Torah lists several other means -- e.g. flour (Lev 5:11), money (Exodus 30:15-16), jewelry (Numbers 31:50) or putting fire from the altar in a censure (Numbers 17:11). In addition, Hosea 14:3 says that our lips (i.e. prayers from our lips) can substitute for bulls (i,.e. blood sacrifice), Micah (6:6-8) says G-d wants a good heart rather than blood sacrifices, and the both Isaiah (1:11) and the Psalmist (40 and 50) say that G-d does not need or care about blood sacrifices. Blood is just one of many means for atonement. (See "Verses Missionaries Ignore" for details.)

Secondly, Leviticus 17:11 speaks of atonement ("kapare" in Hebrew) for our souls, but not for 'sin' -- i.e. an act of intentional wickedness. What else could atonement be for? The Bible evidently has additional uses for the word, because the Bible speaks of atonement for acts committed by mistake (which we do not usually consider sins), and also speaks of making atonement for the altar (Exodus 29:36). The word here may have the implication of making durably holy by applying a coating (see the story of Noah's ark), but whatever the meaning, one cannot impute deliberate wrongdoing to an altar.

One cannot apply this verse to Jesus' blood in any event, because it specifies blood on the altar, and Jesus did not die on any altar, let alone the altar in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem which is clearly the altar Leviticus is referring to.

Finally, the verse is taken out of context. Verses 10 to 14 say (KJV):

10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. 12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. 13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. 14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

In other words, the verse has nothing to do with salvation. It is about the dietary laws -- specifically, the comments about the life being in the blood are an explanation for the prohibition against eating blood.

Source: http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/j4j_no.html