Sin Sacrifice: A Response to Caleb Hegg

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

IMPORTANT RETRACTION: I have officially and publicly retracted my accusation that the “Torah-keeping” position on future sin sacrifices is a false gospel. I’ve come to realize that most Torah-keeping teachers aren’t claiming that salvation hangs on the end times sin sacrifices, and therefore their position is technically not a false gospel; it’s not an alternate way to be saved. In hindsight, I was wrong and uncharitable in categorizing it that way, and I apologize to anyone who felt maligned. My goal is always to offer an accurate and fair defense of biblical Christianity, and I overreached in my categorization of this issue. I maintain that the idea of future sin sacrifices contradicts the NT (Heb. 10:18) and impugns the sufficiency of Christ’s “once for all” sacrifice (Rom. 6:10, Heb. 7:27, 9:12, 9:26, 10:10), which covered all sin for all time. However, that idea does not rise to the level of a false gospel. I’ve chosen not to take down this video because I still believe it to be a biblical and necessary part of this conversation, and I stand by everything it teaches and exposes, with the sole exception of the “false gospel” classification. Blessings, Prof. Solberg

[@pben004]

Everything you said in this video is exactly what brought us out of HR. We began to study the New Testament again, without listening to any Torah teachers, and realized that we are indeed in a New Covenant with a new High Priest who atoned for our sin once for ALL TIME. To say anything else is a false gospel! "Anyone who disregarded the law of Moses died without mercy, based on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment do you think one will deserve who has trampled on the Son of God, who has regarded as profane the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?" Hebrews 10

[@teacherlynn671]

People cannot let go of the Torah even though a much better way has come through Christ. Christ is the sacrifice, High Priest, and King in one and a New Law comes through a New Priesthood. The freedom we have is confusing and hard to accept. By Faith alone God has given us everything. Professor Solberg did great and I agree with his argument.

[@Luiiciano]

There are no new laws and none of the old ones were abolished.

[@Wisdoms_Inheritance]

Correct, there are no new laws, though requirements have been met for part of the law, other parts put in motion and not all laws apply, the law as a whole is still valid and we keep what does apply.

[@salpezzino7803]

@@Wisdoms_Inheritance this is NO where to be found in the Word of God "we keep what does apply" By what standard? Who decides which ones apply? Not much wisdom in that

[@Wisdoms_Inheritance]

@@salpezzino7803 You're a funny person, "Who decides which ones apply?" If you're asking that question and don't understand that some laws simply don't apply while others we can't keep, then you don't have any wisdom. I'll answer anyway: Christ was wise enough to know not even he could keep all the laws, like the ones for priests, women, farmers etc... Because they didn't apply to him, do you think he kept the ones that did apply? How about tithes, do you give them and if you do, to who, as they were only collected by priests? When you're on a plane, you can take your seatbelt off while in flight, is it lawful to do the same in a car while driving? I assume you understand the difference. No need for it to be said in the word of God to keep what applies, it's common sense, Christ had/has it, do you?

[@salpezzino7803]

@@Wisdoms_Inheritance show me in the Bible where God tells us to keep the ones that apply? The law was given to a Mosaic theocracy. No you are funny

[@Eirik_Jarl]

Rooter: "Christ didn't atone for the material world!" Robert: "That's gnosticism Patrick!!"

[@theomegawerty9688]

"The blood of bulls and goats can never take away sin"

[@Luiiciano]

Correct sacrifices never removed sin, only served as atonement for them. You understand there’s a difference between a sacrifice serving as covering for your sin and the removal of sin right?

[@believer8091]

@@Luiicianodoes Solberg address the difference?

[@salpezzino7803]

@@Luiiciano where do you take all the Commanded sacrifices in the Mosaic law? How about the Commanded offerings for all the Commanded Feasts? How are you making out with them? Break One and you are Damned

[@6969smurfy]

​@@believer8091no

[@6969smurfy]

​@@believer8091atonement only covers Sin, then when you acknowledge ie confess it you are to repent, turn away (around) from it! You will always Sin, so we should NOT abuse this sacrifice!

[@Reygaming-z1y]

May the Lord Jesus Christ always bless Prof. Solberg and his family 🙏🙏🙏😇😇😇😇 Amin.

[@OneWingedShark]

What gets me is that to assert that there will be a need for sacrifice in a spatial/temporal sense, for making people fit for sacred space, is to deny that the believer has become the Temple, indwelt by the Holy Spirit. - So, not only is there some sense that this system requires Jesus's sacrifice to be incomplete/ineffectual, but it also subtly denies that the Holy Spirit is in believers, and thereby _also_ denies the priesthood of all believers.

[@salpezzino7803]

Amen. I agree. Jesus IS the last Temple making all those who are His the Temple. Dispensationalism and it's weakness fueled the false teachings of the HRM

[@H0n3yc0mb7]

@@OneWingedShark I just realized this yesterday too! Although I’m not sure what Hegg’s view on the Holy Spirit is and I know different Torah groups have ranging views. Hegg and other Torah keepers who subscribe to this idea would possibly say that His sacrifice was never meant to fix this issue and it’s just our modern misunderstanding of it that is incomplete, not His sacrifice. (Like Judaism saying “Israel still faces evil, He wasn’t the Messiah) But the Holy Spirit issue seems to throw a wrench in their philosophy as far as I can tell so far. There’s things I don’t agree with Hegg on, and things I don’t agree with Solberg on. Much fun. The journey continues.

[@kimartist]

Yes! Also cancels out the Holy Spirit being the seal of Christ's salvation? If Christ is the chief cornerstone, believers the living stones, then Holy Spirit is the "mortar" holding the whole thing together? Is it not therefore dangerous - spiritually speaking - to place oneself outside this "structure," this Temple of God?

[@6969smurfy]

Ummm, the Ruach Hakodesh ie holysprit brings the Faith to YOUR very sinful most of ALL fleshly Heart . ... Messiah was 💯 % Torah No GO, Follow HIM!

[@OneWingedShark]

@@6969smurfy I said nothing regarding the Torah, but since you bring it up: when were gentiles subjected to the law of Moses? Note well, that if you say anything other than _"Never."_ you are asserting a lie and acting against scripture: see Acts 15.

[@adamcooper3656]

Great content, but I was distracted with trying to figure out how you are interacting with your slide on the screen. What is your set up? God bless your content!

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Hi Adam! I'm just using Keynote on an iPad, with an Apple Pencil for annotation. Rob

[@theosophicalwanderings7696]

These people are in a cult. Doesn’t matter how many times you try to explain it they just don’t want to see. Glad you are putting these out for those on the fence.

[@narrowway4626]

I was shocked the first time I heard a Hebrew Rootser tell me the animal sacrifices will be started up again. I have 2 questions- 1. Are we not told that there will be no more pain, sorrow and death in the new heavens and new earth Rev 21:4, so how could their be killing animals? 2. What other scriptures do they use for this theory other than Eikiels temple from chapter 43-48? Without understanding that this temple is what could have been if the Israelites of that time would feel ashamed of their sin, it certainly causes a lot of clear NT verses to be contradicted. It seems that the NT clearly teaches no more literal temple, no more dead animal or blood sacrifices/atonement, no more literal priests. We, the true church are the temple and the priests and offer a living sacrifice whilst Jesus made the final atonement. Am I off thinking that?

[@iansmith9474]

Hello narrowway, sacrifices will be made during the 1000 years of Jesus' reign from Jerusalem. After the millenium, the new heavens and earth will be established, and yes, the Temple and sacrifices will be no more; this is AFTER a period of 1000 years. They believe this because every prophecy regarding the new Covenant expresses that the purpose of the new heart and new spirit that God grants in the new Covenant is to inspire Israel to obey the Torah so that he could regather them to the land, and so that he could bestow upon them all the promises regarding blessing and bounty on the land, and worldwide prominence relative to the nations.

[@harryabrahams2770]

@@iansmith9474 clear and concise…that’s truth…Got Torah Got Truth

[@salpezzino7803]

@@iansmith9474 that is a load of dung. You did make me laugh -- thanks

[@iansmith9474]

@salpezzino7803 A person who cannot defend their argument turns to crass language.

[@salpezzino7803]

@@iansmith9474 Like Donald Trump? What does that have to do with anything?

[@kimartist]

Excellent. Very clear cut explanations! My only follow-up question is: How much of Hegg's (& similar Torah teachers') theology is less about neutralizing/negating the cross of Christ & more about justifying the keeping of Torah?

[@D.C.Harris]

I think the Hegg's want it both ways. They want to be sound in Christian doctrine but also be Hebrew Roots. It doesn't work.

[@kimartist]

​@@D.C.Harris Yes, it has to result in Scripture twisting somewhere along the line, or the rejection of Paul, or Jesus as God, or the Covenant as New, or any number of harmonizing "solutions."

[@salpezzino7803]

@@D.C.Harris so did Adam and Eve

[@georgehart8179]

Old Testament prophets reveal the insufficiency of sacrifices. Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Micah 6: 6-8 With what shall I come before the Lord, ... Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, ... He has shown you, O man, what is good, and what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. 1 Samuel 15:22 So Samuel said: Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams. Jeremiah 7:21-23 Thus says the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel: "Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices, and eat the flesh. For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this command I gave them: Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you."

[@salpezzino7803]

Amen

[@6969smurfy]

Yups the did, and then the christains took over this role abusing Messiahs atonement payment over and over again. Never concluding there requirements as ruled in Acts 15. Hint it's at the end.....

[@j.rumbleseed]

Right on the head of the subject! Perfectly said. Great ! Well done.

[@joshnelson3803]

Great stuff brother, keep defending the true gospel!

[@6969smurfy]

@@joshnelson3803 true gospel ? Those to teach Torahless ie lawlessness will be judge lesser, read it fornyour self.... hint, it's in Revelations.

[@PavelMosko]

It looks like an Act of Providence. God actually kept Paul from completing that Nazarite vow and making the sin sacrifice because he did not want the sacrifice of Christ to be undermined in the Bible!

[@salpezzino7803]

Amen

[@dashaunjefferies1168]

Simply put--if the animal sacrifices clean a physical space from a spiritual impurity, then it does operate on a spiritual level as well. You cannot claim to address the thing forgiven (sin) in one breath as something unaffected in the next.

[@kimartist]

Good point. Though the consequences of sin can be physical/tangible, sin itself is not a tangible/physical thing; it is a spiritual condition.

[@babylonsfall7]

Your programs are so well done. I love how you put the verses at the side window there, so aesthetically and graphically delicious and easy to see. Keep up the good fight. This same issue plagued the early church as well, which can be seen in the Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarpe.

[@kennethjacobs4824]

Well done.

[@PavelMosko]

Instituting some kind of sacrificial system at the end of the Age for sin after Christ makes about as much sense as putting someone who has had a successful kidney replacement back on a dialysis machine "just because". It is like shining a flashlight in the middle of a sunny day. Pretty much perfunctory uselessness.

[@babylonsfall7]

I like what Bishop Ignatius of Antioch said about Torahism: “For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace… If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day… It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believes might be gathered together to God.” ~120AD

[@salpezzino7803]

And yet, Rob calls those in Torahism his friends. He calls those who teach a false gospel, a damnable gospel his friends Both the Word of God and the History of Jesus's Bride rebuke this evil Satanic Cult and Caleb Yet Rob gives them an audience where their followers come and vomit Satan's lies

[@Wisdoms_Inheritance]

The problem is in Ignatius of Antioch's message, "no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's day" when there's only one place in the bible that God calls his holy day - Isaiah 58:13, also "but Judaism Christianity" when Christian was a derogatory term for those who followed Christ, yet people accept his writings as authoritative, very interesting.

[@babylonsfall7]

@@Wisdoms_Inheritance- ​​⁠- Christianity isn’t a derogatory term in ~120AD when Ignatius is writing. It’s an identifier. This Church father wrote some amazing things and he is among the first generation of Christian leaders after the death of the Apostles. So what he is saying is early a byproduct of what the leaders thought at the time. Maybe it’s not “authoritative”, Ignatius even says in one of his letters “I’m not commanding you as an Apostle” and he truly held Peter and Paul as a higher level than he. But at the same time, the man brought the same type of truth bombs that they did. I encourage you to read all of his legitimate letters (not the spurious ones) which are completely free online. The early church (a generation after the Apostles) believed following the Jewish law was not only not required but also proof that you didn’t even understand the grace of God, and thus Christ. More Ignatius: “But if any one preach the Jewish law unto you, listen not to him. For it is better to hearken to Christian doctrine from a man who has been circumcised, than to Judaism from one uncircumcised. But if either of such persons do not speak concerning Jesus Christ, they are in my judgment but as monuments and sepulchres of the dead, upon which are written only the names of men. Flee therefore the wicked devices and snares of the prince of this world, lest at any time being conquered by his artifices, grow weak in your love.”

[@6969smurfy]

​@@babylonsfall7 yes it is! Because this "Title" carries the Lawless Anti-christ! Show me One place where Christanity in mentioned!

[@babylonsfall7]

@@6969smurfy - the title “Christian” is an identifier. “and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.” - Acts‬ ‭11‬:‭26‬ ‭ESV‬‬ Antioch is also where Ignatius is elected to be the Bishop of that city’s church congregation, like James was in Jerusalem (before he was martyred).

[@XavierPutnam]

I would agree that the blood is said to atone for "souls" (Lev. 17:11), but I wonder if Caleb and the text mean *two different things* by "souls." The word for "soul(s)" does not *always* refer to the incorporeal part of us, but can also just more generically refer to one's life / being. I wonder whether Leviticus 17:11 is using the word in that way, rather than referring to the internal part of us. What are your thoughts?

[@dwaynejohnson4662]

What about the thief on the cross? He just took Jesus words and entered paradise that day.

[@salpezzino7803]

@@dwaynejohnson4662 The Rock

[@XavierPutnam]

@@dwaynejohnson4662What does the thief on the cross have to do with what I said? My main point is just that “soul” can sometimes refer to the incorporeal part of us, but other times refer to people as a whole.

[@joshuamelton9148]

Very informative as always. I have definitely noticed sectors within the Hebrew Roots movement that they have a very low view of the atonement work that Jesus did on the cross to pay for our sins Past, Present and future.

[@kimartist]

They almost **have to** have a low view of the atonement... else have their Torah-keeping rendered useless 🤷🏻‍♀️

[@6969smurfy]

​@@kimartistyou defile HIS atonement , if you don't truly repent, turn away form YOUR Sin, if you don't learn Torah (acts 15) you Don't Know Sin! Messiah was 💯 % Torah, Follow HIM!

[@indo3052]

SolbergS stance is that Ezekiel 40-48 is mellenial kingdom. So he believes sin atonement is happening in kingdom

[@joshuamelton9148]

@@indo3052 I remember you. You are the Hebrew Israelite that was on Alton Johnson youtube channel wanting to debate him .

[@kmountain5533]

@@6969smurfythe gospel was taken to the Gentiles and they had no Torah. They were convicted of sin and turned to righteousness - Acts 3:26 and 1 Peter 2:24 Even John wrote that those who practices righteousness is righteous as He is and those who do sin are of the devil - 1 John 3:7,8. Christians are turned from sin when they receive Christ who is the righteousness of God and they don’t keep on sinning. Anyone who keeps on sinning after receiving Christ (Colossians 1:27) is a false convert.

[@SwanOnChips]

1) per the book of Hebrews the OT animal sacrifices could never truly atone for sins, they were passed over and 2) God took away the temple and alter because they are unnecessary.

[@D.C.Harris]

Another point about Acts 21 is that Paul is told, "They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs." Then they tell him to join the purification rites and pay for the other four guys for the following reason: "Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you." The whole point, I would submit, is not to stir up trouble with the hard core locals! It's the same thing when Jesus told Peter to get the coin from the fish and pay the temple tax: "So that we do not offend them!" (Matt 17:27) It has nothing to do with some ongoing need to keep up the requirements of the Old Covenant.

[@davidmorris7476]

Yes. 1 Corinthians 9:20-22

[@XavierPutnam]

Acts 21 doesn’t give that as the reason.

[@ArchDLuxe]

@D.C. Harris so for you, the word "know" in Acts 21:24 means "be tricked into believing"?

[@melodieharder7654]

@@XavierPutnam The part to the Gentiles from Acts 15 is still the same over 4 1/2 years later in Acts 21 where it clarifies from the verse previous and how they are NOT talking about Gentile believers… Acts 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe NO such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

[@XavierPutnam]

@@melodieharder7654 Agreed, it is still the same that the Gentiles cannot be compelled (forced) to keep certain commandments for salvation (Acts 15:1). My comment was addressing something entirely different, though, namely, that nowhere in the context of Acts 21 is there support for the idea that James and Paul were trying to appease the Jews. That’s a very embarrassing and disrespectful interpretation to assign to the apostles.

[@cobyhelton9246]

Great video.

[@thespaminator]

I propose a new word for describing this type of Torah observance: Antigospel.

[@Christo-pv7eb]

You’re ignorant.

[@6969smurfy]

I propose "christanity" takes the TITLE the lawless anti-christ church!

[@teacherlynn671]

Can’t wait….just love these open debates…praying for you Professor Solberg. Thank you.

[@Jdavid7771]

The problem here is not understanding the different categories of sins. Rebellious sin leads to death (Num 15:30). According the Mishnah Yoma that covers Yom Kippur, it could cover rebellious sin, however it was at the discretion of God. But forgiveness does not mean the penalty just goes away. We see this with King David. David committed adultery and murdered someone. Those are two of the most serious crimes in the Torah, worthy of Death. David knew there was no offering that he could give except beg for mercy from God. God forgave him, but it cost him the death of David's son, this is foreshadowing of Jesus. In order for the sin of Adam (rebellious sin) to be forgiven, the penalty has to be paid. There is no offering that can forgive that sin. Hence the reason Jesus came down as a man, to pay that penalty so that ALL of humanity can be free. Now anyone who believes has access to Eternal Life (Salvation). This is what Hebrews 2 is all about. This is something the Torah could not provide nor the offerings in the Temple. IF the Temple could do that, we wouldn't need Jesus in the first place and the Bible would be a lot shorter lol. But the Temple has it's function and Jesus his, they don't over lap but run parallel. I implore everyone to study the offerings more, Jacob Milgrom's book on Leviticus is a very good resource.

[@soybeanfarmer4576]

Does David’s son have any value? It seems that from the son’s perspective, he is absolutely worthless (a pawn). I don’t disagree with your statements. Just throwing it out there.

[@boltingpuppies]

I recently watched a video discussion between you and Sean from Kingdom in Context. I had _never_ heard of him but someone suggested I watch some of his videos so I watched three, including the video featuring you. I was shocked. While I don't categorize myself as Hebrew Roots, I do believe we are to obey God's commandments. For this reason you and I are not always on the same page...BUT in Christ I would count you a brother who knows who Yeshua is (Yeshua is YHVH, God). I was shocked at his denial of Yeshua's divinity (denial that Yeshua is YHVH). I went back to that person and told them I had watched several of Sean's videos and that he didn't even know who Yeshua is (which brought about more discussion and scriptures proving this fact). While you and I do not agree on certain things we do know who our Lord and God is, praise God. I haven't watched this video yet. I'm about to. Sacrifices are going to resume (before the millennial reign) and they will be rejected by YHVH (because the ones sacrificing are not choosing that in which YHVH delights, Yeshua)(Isaiah 66). YHVH will bring a portion of Israel through the tribulation, trying them like gold in the fire. When they finally receive Him and He returns, He will appoint some of them as Levites and priests. Their sacrifices and offerings *will once again be acceptable* as in the days of old. _They will have chosen the one in which He delights._ Those sacrifices, are slightly different that the original sacrifices (in number, quantities of animals being sacrificed) so they are not exactly the same and yet to be fulfilled. There will be sin sacrifices as prophesied. Remember, those in the millennial reign will either be mortals who enter (including those who will be chosen to be priests and Levites) who are still in sinful flesh or they will be those in the first resurrection who are in eternal *sinless bodies* and are priests to the YHVH in a different priesthood. Christians today (those in Christ) who enter into the millennial reign *will not be offering up sacrifices for our sin* (because we will be in eternal sinless bodies, no sin, no sin sacrifice and OUR sins have been forgiven and *WHERE* there is forgiveness of sin there is no more sacrifice). (WHERE is there no more sin? the eternal age, the New Heaven and New Earth, the *home* of righteousness) Mortals in the millennial kingdom on this first earth, still in sinful flesh, will still sacrifice for it as they did in the past (and it never took away sin in the past but was an appeasement). *My thought* is that YHVH's presence was among the people and blood was necessary for temporary appeasement/covering and purification while He dwelt among them. In the millennial reign Yeshua will be among us _but YHVH will also be in the Holy of Holies._ It seems sin sacrifices for sinful mortals still in the flesh will be necessary then too (since His presence will be among them) because not all of them will be 'in Christ'. If a sinful mortal were to approach the temple or go inside He might break out against them if they weren't at least 'temporarily' covered until they put their faith in Christ. I did watch a few minutes of your video before leaving this comment and I wanted to add that I'm not sure that Leviticus 17:11 is talking about the 'Levitical atonement sacrifice' making atonement for our souls but is actually referring to the 'hidden' future Melchizedek atonement sacrifice. A foreshadow. Leviticus 17:11 "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." YHVH gave _His own blood_ on the heavenly altar in the heavenly temple for us. Acts 20:28 "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God *which He purchased with **_His own blood."_* I seems like YHVH was telling us _right there_ that He gave His blood on the altar to make atonement for our souls. *"and **_"I"_** have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls"* It's not something we would 'see or realize' until much later but it was hidden in plain sight. Watching the rest of the video now.

[@e.m.8094]

Professor Solberg, have you read a book titled "Lamb of the Free"? I saw a review of it, and I'm thinking about ordering it. I feel like recently there have been so many different takes on the atonement, and that isn't something I've studied in depth yet.

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Thanks, EM! I'd not heard of that book. I checked it out and it sounds equally fascinating and concerning to me. I skimmed the intro on Amazon and came across a couple things that I found questionable. For example, the idea that "Only holy objects within the sacred dwelling place receive the ritual action of _kipper._ In other words when _kipper_ happens, what is decontaminated or purified is a holy object in the sanctuary, _not_ people" (p. 4). At first blush, that reads as a problematic statement. It suggests that the human priests who enter the sacred space are not purified by the sacrifices, which seems at odds with Leviticus. (i.e. Lev. 16:5, 11, 17, 24, 30, 33). Of course, I would have to read the rest of the book to fully understand where he's coming from. Blessings, Rob

[@e.m.8094]

@@TheBiblicalRoots Thank you Rob! Yes, even though I have not studied the atonement in depth yet, something seemed a little "off" to me. I do like to read things from different viewpoints however, because sometimes I think it's good to know the perspective of other people and have my own views solidified a bit. I truly appreciate the response, and taking the time to have a look at that. Thank you for your channel and the work you do for the kingdom; it's been a tremendous blessing. Have a wonderful weekend!

[@D.C.Harris]

YES! Excellent...

[@thomashcase]

Thank you for the video and thanks to Caleb for putting into writing his thoughts. This is what is missing sometimes in the back and forth on KZbin. In reading Caleb’s paper, I found it didn’t go as far as you described in the video. I have watched a lot of Caleb and Rob and I have watched a lot of your videos. I do find Caleb lacking in a few areas mostly in areas you responded. I do think however that you didn’t really respond to his central charge that he has made towards you in previous videos (e.g., his discussion with Andrew Schumacher and his response on my comments in your previous video). He mentions in the paper regarding justification in the Old Testament. His charge is that you believe the Old Testament sin sacrifices justified the people. I agree with your take here and that Caleb doesn’t adequately clarify that Leviticus speaks towards atonement, however, you haven’t clarified the opposite side. You do need to clarify that you do believe that even in the Old Testament, people were justified by faith. I see neither side addressing what David writes in Psalm 51. Psalm 51 speaks of inward renewal, and indewlling of the Holy Spirit. David even though he had the Law spoke of justification through faith IMHO here in Psalm 51. I also see neither side addressing the fact that the mercy seat ( i.e., ark) is no longer present (even in Jesus day). How was the Day of Atonement carried out in Jesus day? Was a new mercy seat created? To me, this alone is a change in the law.

[@glennomac7499]

Amen! What he fails to realise that the temporary animal sacrifices were to atone for the purpose that God would dwell with His people, and that the once for all atonement made by Jesus was for the same purpose, so that God would pour out His Spirit on His people, the new temple, thus dwelling with them on earth! He's negating the whole purpose of the new covenant atonement. Jesus said that His blood was the blood of the new testament or covenant, meaning, the basis for it being fulfilled. These people have rejected the new covenant! Regarding cleansing the temporal earthly space as he puts it, Zechariah 3:9 says, For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day. God did this in one day on the cross!

[@SDsc0rch]

this whole time I'm listening thinking, a plain reading of scripture doesn't lead one to their conclusion you need some special... "knowledge" dare I say they are bordering dangerously close to....... "gnostism"?

[@D.C.Harris]

I once had a conversation with these very guys (Hegg et al), and I said the exact same thing. They feel as if they have some special insight that nobody else has. They scoffed at the idea when I mentioned it, and said I didn't know what "gnosticism" was. I think you are 100% on the mark.

[@kimartist]

Yes it always seems like everything hinges on a "special" twisty reading of Scripture that no one else can see... Emperor's New Clothes?

[@ArchDLuxe]

Yeah! You really need to twist passages like Exodus 12:14 to think that Passover was to be an eternal statute. Unfortunately, it looks like those pronomians confused Jesus in the 1st century into believing it would still be practiced in God's Kingdom, at His return (see Luke 22:15-16). Does their scripture-twisting "gnostic" audacity know no end?

[@Mr.dingles]

Hey Mr. Solberg, just wanted to make sure I have the doctrinal position correct, when Jesus says fulfill in the context of Matthew 5 :17 he’s saying that when he completes the laws by doing them they reached their intended meaning and no longer bonded to the new covenant?

[@D.C.Harris]

Not to presume to answer for Solberg because he can certainly answer for himself, but since Christ "fulfilled" the law by actually keeping it perfectly, he did something no other person is capable of doing. So no, they aren't binding in the new covenant of grace and forgiveness.

[@salpezzino7803]

@@D.C.Harris what about the 10 Commandments?

[@salpezzino7803]

Rob is an antinomian

[@melodieharder7654]

@@salpezzino7803 They were never given to the Gentiles. You would think after the Gentiles were given the gospel that it would be made very clear of that was the case, but nope. Acts 15, 21 are very clear. Gentiles are not under the old covenant law. The rest of the NT bears that out as well.

[@salpezzino7803]

@@melodieharder7654 You cant be that stupid., well Rob is, so maybe you are. The 10 Commandments are not an Old Covenant. Acts 15:21???????

[@Ahayah70X7]

🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@lunarblu8585]

FYI; This comment is before the video is released. I started to reading Caleb Hegg's Paper: "Sin Sacrifices". This is going to be a LONG video and I would not be supersized if more come out. I also started reading some verses; Lev 23:26-32, Lev 1:1-9, & Num 29:7-11 to start with a few scripture. Keep these highlights in the back of your mind. Two things, these verses context speaks to the Community and the Space. My biblical principles are as follows; Physical (Shadow) -> Heavenly, so we can understand the Heavenly. We are the temple of God individually and community. Notice the all the overlap

[@RooshkyBear]

All I’m seeing here from soldberg is like Nicodemus to Jesus. How does a man become born again through his mother’s womb. And Jesus responds “If you cannot understand earthly things, how will you understand heavenly things.”

[@antonellabaluganti8109]

Io sono ebrega di sangue tramite la discendenza di mia madrre che e ebrea di sangue , e ebrea di sangue era anche mia nonna madre di mia madre ma siamo nate in italia io si sono ebrea ma cristiana soprattutto cristiana perche riconosco Gesu Cristo il. Mio Dio il mio Re Il mio Signore il Mio Salvatore e Salvatore del Mondo Amen Alleluyia

[@travisambers6307]

Hello Professor Solberg! (: How did believers in the Old Testament receive salvation?

[@salpezzino7803]

Same as the NT - thru faith in Christ alone. They looked forward to the Cross and I look back at the Cross

[@travisambers6307]

@@salpezzino7803 I agree! But that means Christ's salvation was covering them...while they were doing animal sacrifices. So I'm left scratching my head why Professor Solberg thinks that would somehow be spitting on Christ's sacrifice. The Israelites in the OT were offered the same way to salvation - faith in Christ. Just as we are. The Bible shows us that they (Christ's sacrifice and animal sacrifices) operated simultaneously in the past and that they will operate simultaneously in the future (Ezekiel's Millenial Temple) - it makes no sense that it would somehow be dishonoring Christ's sacrifice to be saying they could be operating simultaneously now (if the Temple and Priesthood were operable).

[@salpezzino7803]

@@travisambers6307 they wont be in the Future, They were Shadows, why go back to shadow. There is No Ezekiel's Temple. Jesus is the last Temple making Jesus's Bride the Temple.. There is No Millennium, we have been in it since the Ascension, The Book of Revelation is full of symbolism, yet people read 1000 years to mean 1000 years. "For all the animals of the forest are mine, and I own the cattle on a thousand hills." Does God own the cattle on the 1001st hill?

[@margaretjoysalillas-rosqui5224]

❤❤❤

[@kmountain5533]

If the sin offering that was made once a year cleansed their soul that is in contradiction to Hebrews 9:13-14, which claims that the sacrifices only cleansed the flesh. The writer of Hebrews in Verse 14 claims that Christ’s sacrifice cleanses our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. This means that the Israelites’ conscience was never cleansed from their sins unlike the perfect sacrifice of Christ which takes away the sins of the person and makes that dead sinner to God now alive to God with a clean conscience. Edit: Leviticus 17:11 is a prophecy of Christ. It is speaking of the need of the life of God in man that is Jesus Christ to be the sin sacrifice otherwise it is just an animal sacrifice which has no power over sin just like a human sacrifice would have no power over sin. It is a type and shadow as the writer of Hebrews claims.

[@Badkharma21]

Sin sacrifice atoned for sin temporarily when the Jews were under the law. That has changed now. We are under the gospel of grace

[@kmountain5533]

@@Badkharma21animal sacrifices could never never atone for sin. Those sacrifices were only a shadow and a type of Christ Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. The OC never promised eternal life it was only a covenant for the Israelites to be on the physical promise land - Deut 4:13. They were to keep the Law but they were told by Moses that they would not keep the Law and God would scatter them of the land. The OC was kept by keeping the Law that was all. The sin sacrifices were instituted to prove to them they were not keeping the Law not to make them clean before God but to give evidence that they were not obeying God and needed a sacrifice that would make them clean before God. Israel was necessary as a nation to be the people that God Himself came through to deliver the whole world from their sins. There is no other reason for Israel to exist.

[@Badkharma21]

@@kmountain5533 i know. but it covered Israel. Hopefully there were those who realized the purpose of the law and called on the name of Jesus.

[@kmountain5533]

@@Badkharma21 the animal sacrifices were never for breaking any of the Ten Commandments. There are no sacrifices for adultery or idolatry and God declares the Israelites and later the Jews to be adulterers and no He doesn’t mean idolaters, He means they were committing adultery and there are no sacrifices for that sin just the death penalty. He expels them as Moses stated in Deuteronomy would happen to them. He cut them off and sent them away because there are no sin sacrifices for those sins. When they returned the Priestly tribe did perform a sacrifice but it was not to cleanse the people, it was to cleanse the sacred places. God had the Jews exiled for 70 years to make up for all the sabbaths and jubilees that they didn’t observe because there are no sacrifices for these sins. The Law demanded a death penalty for breaking the Law but not a sacrifice.

[@Badkharma21]

@@kmountain5533 fair enough. but Yom Kippur and the animal sacrifices, including the scapegoat, were for atoning of sin for the priests and Israel.

[@lunarblu8585]

Finial finished the video and it is very well done. Do the viewers see the "Domino effect" of Christ? Sacrifices ->Temple ->Priest ->Sabbaths ->Tithes -> and so on...

[@coreybray9834]

Solberg: If you’ve been around 1:20 this channel any amount of time, you know that I’m not a sensationalist kind of guy who goes around 1:26 attacking people and throwing out scandalous claims and flinging mud. In fact, I find that 1:32 kind of approach childish and unproductive. This channel is all about boldly and thoughtfully and 1:39 respectfully defending biblical Christianity. I mention all of that so you understand that I’m 1:45 not making the following claim lightly: I truly believe that the Hebrew Roots (or Torah-keeping or 1:53 Pronomian) position on sin sacrifices that's taught by Tim and Caleb Hegg and David 2:00 Wilber and others, is a false gospel that strips the cross of Christ of its full atoning power by 2:07 suggesting that believers need to take further steps to atone for sin that the blood of Jesus 2:12 didn’t cover. *However, let’s be clear, the idea you are attacking here as being part of a false gospel did not originate with these people. God is the one saying he will restore his sanctuary and return us to sin sacrifices in the future. So, the idea that sin sacrifices are still necessary after the cross originates with a plan God put in place long before Christ ever went to the cross. What Daniel 9:24-27 claims is that the sanctuary would be destroyed, and the sacrifices would also cease at that time. And that all literally happened by 70 AD, so if God has planned to restore his sanctuary in Ezekiel 37, and his Levitical priests in Jeremiah 33:14-18, and Ezekiel 44, and sin sacrifices in Ezekiel 44-46, is there any reason why we should think God got this wrong and put forth a plan that is in line with what you argue would be a false gospel??? Does God believe restoring sin sacrifices for an atoning purpose would be in some way contrary to the gospel message or in some way infringe on the inherent value of Christ’s sacrifice??? If so, can you quote God in his own words stating as much???

[@miketisdale7341]

Hebrews 10:12-23 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,” then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin. Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.

[@coreybray9834]

@@miketisdale7341 @miketisdale7341 2 hours ago Hebrews 10:12-23 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. *Well, Christ certainly only needed to die once, but the final Day of Atonement is a Fall feast, and Christ did not fulfill any of the Fall feasts back at his first coming. He only fulfilled the Spring feasts, reserving the Fall feasts to be fulfilled closer to his second coming, namely Trumpets in Revelation 8-11, The Final Day of Atonement in Revelation 15-16 and Tabernacles in Zechariah 14. So, how to view Christ’s death as a sin offering may require a little more thought than provided by the author of Hebrews, because Christ died on Passover. And the Passover is not a sin sacrifice, nor is its blood instructed to be used on the altar in the sanctuary to make atonement for the souls of God’s people. The Passover instruction refers instead to a sacrifice given before there was a sanctuary, because Christ doesn’t enter the sanctuary until after his ascention back to his Father. So, no offering for actual sin where the blood is used on the altar can be appropriated until Christ actually begins his ministry in the heavenly sanctuary as our High Priest under the Daily Ministration.* For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. *So, if we have been perfected for all time, how is it that Christians have been dying since the cross? We die because we have been perfected??? Something seems a bit off with the above claim of the author of Hebrews. Because Christians insist to me constantly that no human is perfect and that sin is still very much holding them back.* And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: *After what days specifically? Because I don’t buy this idea that we are presently under the New Covenant. I believe the author of Hebrews got this one horribly wrong. God will first clear up the issue of the sour grapes in Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 18, before instituting the New Covenant, and the issue of the sour grapes was not resolved back in Christ’s day, not even close. But, let’s look at the rest of this, because he is quoting Jeremiah, and this is a rather interesting passage that deserves careful attention.* I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,” *And how does God do this while man is still struggling with the problem God identifies in Zechariah 7 as a heart like an adamant stone? According to God, this condition is in part man’s refusal to hear his law: and most Christians today are exactly in that state, arguing that God’s law was abolished at the cross or is no longer relevant. So, how can he possibly bring us under the New Covenant until after Christ returns, brings his people back into their own land and removes their stony heart as explained in Ezekiel 11 and 36? Is God going to try to put new wine in old wineskins, as they say, or will he first give his people a New Heart to prepare them for coming under the New Covenant? Because the provision in Ezekiel of gathering the people back into their own land was not accomplished by Christ at his first coming. Christ said he was unable to gather the people in Matthew 23’s closing comments, and so Christ reserves this for the time when the trumpet is blown in Matthew 24 at his second coming. Meaning, we don’t even have a new heart yet, so we are clearly not yet under the New Covenant, because the author of Hebrews got the timing of these prophecies all wrong.* then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” *And when does God forget these things, because Christ speaking to the fifth church of Revelation 3 warns them that he has not found their deeds perfect before God. That’s a prophecy that has reached to our days which helps to further explain why we are not yet under the New Covenant. Furthermore, you skipped over the part from Jeremiah 31:34 where God is explicitly clear that we won’t be teaching every man his neighbor to know the Lord under the New Covenant, because we will all already know him. That means the gospel commission is in direct conflict with the New Covenant if we are under the New Covenant since the cross. All these teachers out here trying to teach people to know God will be out of a job when the New Covenant is truly in force. This is why the New Covenant cannot be in force until, at the very least, after the gospel commission has completed its run.* Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin. *So, what then is Christ doing as a High Priest if there is no more any offering for sin? Is he just sitting in heaven twiddling his thumbs? I mean, the author of Hebrews talks like the matter involving sin has been completely resolved, but anyone on earth today witnessing the corruption sin has continued to impose on our planet can easily see the matter of sin and its impact on our planet is no where close to being resolved. In fact, we haven’t even yet reached the point in Isaiah 24:5-6 when the curse that is coming to devour the earth takes place and the inhabitants are burned and few men left: a curse God says is the result of his law being transgressed, his ordinance being changed and his everlasting covenant being broken. Further suggesting that he hasn’t forgotten our sins yet.* Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. *But, nothing here truly answers the question I raised in my earlier post. “Does God believe restoring sin sacrifices for an atoning purpose would be in some way contrary to the gospel message or in some way infringe on the inherent value of Christ’s sacrifice??? If so, can you quote God in his own words stating as much???”

[@boltingpuppies]

@@miketisdale7341 Key part of this passage: *"WHERE* there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin." There is still sin on the earth during the millennial reign of Christ, which is why he must reign until the last enemy, death, is destroyed (sin brings death, there will still be sin there and still be sin sacrifices there). The new heaven and new earth, however, are the home of righteousness (no sin). *Where* there is no sin there is no sacrifice for sin. In the millennial reign there is sin and there will be sacrificing as God Himself said. We read that *their* (mortals, not in resurrected sinless bodies) sacrifices *will* be acceptable again. The sin sacrifices of the mortals in the millennial reign *will* be acceptable. Believers in the first resurrection *will not* be offering sin sacrifices for their own sins (although our other sacrifices will be accepted on His altar per His promise to us in Isaiah 56). Those in the first resurrection appear to be priests to God in the order of Melchizedek (based on an indestructible life). We see that priest (hood) offering bread and wine (see Abraham and Melchizedek). But we only see *One* eternal *High Priest* Melchizedek (Yeshua) offer a sin/blood sacrifice (in the order of Melchizedek...so no other priest in that priesthood, only our High Priest, offered a sin sacrifice). He did this *once for all* in that priestly order. The mortal Levites and priests will offer sin sacrifices just as prophecied. Malachi 3:3-4 "He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they may present to the LORD offerings in righteousness. Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the LORD as in the days of old and as in former years."

[@tbishop4961]

28:18 wow. That was extremely deceptive. You should be ashamed. Jeremiah tells you what the new covenant is, and you just ignore it and make up your own🤦‍♂️

[@ArchDLuxe]

If our sins have already been completely forgiven, is it wrong to ask the Father to, "...forgive us our sins..." as Jesus taught His disciples to pray? Is James 5:15 wrong to speak of forgiveness in the future tense?

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Hi, Arch! In terms of our ultimate salvation, Jesus has completely forgiven all sin: past, present, and future. "There is no condemnation (charge of wrongdoing) for those who belong to Christ Jesus. And because you belong to him, the power of the life-giving Spirit has freed you from the power of sin that leads to death." (Rom 8:1-2). However, sin still exists and there are still earthly consequences for it. The Bible speaks of a process called sanctification in which a believer learns to lean more and more on Jesus throughout their lifetime. We become more like Him and less sinful over time as we learn to walk by the Spirit. And the way we keep our conscience clean and our relationship with God open is through confession: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Blessings, Rob

[@ArchDLuxe]

​@TheBiblicalRoots I don't understand how this is an answer to either question I asked. In the video, you selected certain passages to make it seem like divine forgiveness of sin is universally spoken of in the past tense by scripture but I think the passages above prove you are misrepresenting the scriptural testimony.

[@iansmith9474]

The word translated as "souls" is "Nefesh" and refers to the life of the body, and not the 'soul', as in, the spiritual aspect of man. This is another case in which it seems that sacrifice is affecting change at the spiritual level, when it is really only addressing the physical level (the life of the physical body). Since Israel joined the Mosaic Covenant with their own lives at stake, should the Israelite unintentionally break the Torah, the legal consequence is that they should merit death. They, in essence, take on the death penalty - the record of transgression is held against their Nefesh (the life of their body). This record of transgression is removed or atoned for through sacrifice. After sacrifice, the Nefesh of the guilty is legal restored and the record of the crime committed is removed. All this is happening on a legal level, and absolutely nothing is going on spiritually.

[@freedominchrist444]

Nefesh means the whole person and we read in Gen 2:7 that Adam became a living nefesh after God breathed into him the breath of life. No nephesh isnt just body. Adam body had been created and then God breathed and he became a living nefesh aka soul

[@iansmith9474]

@freedominchrist444 Nefesh is the life force of the body: "For the life [Nefesh] of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement…” - Leviticus 17:11 After Adam received the breath of life, his body became alive. Without a breath of life, our body dies. Similar to the way that Paul uses the term “flesh” in his epistles to imply carnality and base passions, the scriptures use the word Nefesh to communicate desire and appetite. This is because ''Nefesh" represents the life force of the body and the base drives of the body. “And put a knife to your throat, if you be a man given to appetite [Nefesh].” - Proverbs 23:2-3 “For he satisfies the longing soul [Nefesh] and fills the hungry soul [Nefesh] with goodness.” - Psalms 107:9 “The full soul [Nefesh] loathes a honeycomb; but to the hungry soul [Nefesh] every bitter thing is sweet.” - Proverbs 27:7 “Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never satisfy their souls [Nefesh].” - Isaiah 56:11

[@iansmith9474]

@freedominchrist444 Nefesh represents the life force of the body: “For the life [Nefesh] of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your..." When Adam received the breath of life, his body became alive. Without the breath of life, our body dies. Similar to the way that Paul uses the term “flesh” in his epistles to imply carnality and base passions, the scriptures use the word Nefesh to communicate desire and appetite: “And put a knife to your throat, if you be a man given to appetite [Nefesh].” - Proverbs 23:2-3 “For he satisfies the longing soul [Nefesh] and fills the hungry soul [Nefesh] with goodness.” - Psalms 107:9 “The full soul [Nefesh] loathes a honeycomb; but to the hungry soul [Nefesh] every bitter thing is sweet.” - Proverbs 27:7 “Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never satisfy their souls [Nefesh].” - Isaiah 56:11 On the Old Testament feast day, known as “The day of atonement” the Torah commands the Israelites to go through a period of self-imposed “affliction”: “It is a sabbath of solemn rest for you, and you shall afflict your souls. It is a statute forever.” - Leviticus 16:31 [KJV] Short of physical violence against one’s Nefesh (body), the best way to afflict the Nefesh is to cause it to suffer by fasting. The phrase “INul Nefesh” translated as “afflicting the soul” appears a number of times in scripture, making it clear that the intended meaning is to fast for a period of time: “I afflicted my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine own bosom.” - Psalms 35:13 “…I wept, and afflicted my soul with fasting, that was to my reproach.” - Psalms 69:11 “Wherefore have we fasted, say they, and you see not? Wherefore have we afflicted our soul, and you take not notice?…” - Isaiah 58:3

[@freedominchrist444]

@@iansmith9474 It refers to the whole person body and soul. Gods breath did not just make him a body he was given a soul too. And the hebrews considered a person one whole body soul and spirit. They did not separate it. Only those trying to redefine words to make their false doctrine work. It also speaks the sacrifices brought forgiveness. Sin is an act of the soul that comes from the heart and mind.

[@iansmith9474]

@freedominchrist444 The Hebrews held that the spiritual anatomy of man consisted of a Nefesh [life of the body], Ruach [personality and emotions] and Neshamah [spark of God]. The "breath" of God, in Hebrew is "Neshamah" - and since it came from God's lungs so to speak, they regard it as a piece of the divine that gives man the capacity for life in general (the Nefesh can't live without it) as well as the capacity for a form of life that is spiritual in nature, in contrast to the Nefesh which is tied to the physical. In addition, scripture associates it with the intellect, since our intellect is what separates us from animals, who lack a Neshamah.

[@tbishop4961]

Notably missing from all of your arguments on this topic.. any reference whatsoever to the Jerusalem talmud written by men who actually participated in these rituals It's almost like you're more interested in fantasy sometimes

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Hey T. The Jerusalem Talmud is a collection of rabbinic notes on the Mishnah and it wasn't compiled until the 4th century. So it wasn't written by "men who actually participated in these rituals" since the Temple was destroyed in the 1st century. I realize that it contains ideas that may go back to the Second Temple period. And that Tractate Chagigah contains some comments on sacrifices and the ritual purity required of those who visit the temple. But I didn't come across anything that impacts my line of argumentation. Did I miss something? The big thing missing from the Jerusalem Talmud is any acknowledgment or understanding of the work of Christ. Shalom, R.

[@tbishop4961]

@@TheBiblicalRoots it certainly was compiled before the 4th century. That is when it was CLOSED. It was written (perhaps I should say composed and not penned) by men who worshipped in the 2nd temple before it's destruction What you're missing are not only details of temple worship, but the mindset of those who were engaged in the practice

[@tbishop4961]

I'm thinking the mishnah is the oldest part and firmly dated at the early part of the 2nd century

[@tbishop4961]

The authors had probably read the book of Jonah and were quite familiar with the idea that the goy didn't need "the work of christ" to repent and be saved

[@MrH4YAH]

I would say, take a 20:20 look at it. Matt12:36-37 says all idle words are judged.

[@waytruthlife9643]

Solberg, I understand your position on the Sabbath, but what is your stance on the other 9 commandments? Are those still required under the new covenant?

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Hi, WTL! The 10 Commandments were given as the foundation of the Old Covenant law. As I see it, those Commandments do not apply to Christians today *in the context they were given to Israel.* In other words, we don't honor our parents "so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you" (Exod. 20:12). And we don't impose the death penalty on someone who breaks the seventh day Sabbath.The Bible says: "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." (Col. 2:16-17) That said, the principles _behind_ the Ten Commandments still very much apply to Christians. In fact, 9 of the 10 Commandments are repeated and taught in the New Testament. (The Sabbath is not). The Bible teaches that we are not required to keep the seventh day Sabbath _as it was given_ in the Law of Moses. (We can if we want, of course...just not the death penalty part!) But I believe the principle behind the Sabbath is still to be kept: setting aside a regular time of rest to remember, thank, and worship God and be with family. Blessings, Rob

[@salpezzino7803]

@@TheBiblicalRoots ,you do teach antinomianism, David Wilber is correct.

[@kimartist]

Rob is prologos (not nomos) & proeuangelion (not poneros)👈😃👍

[@salpezzino7803]

@@kimartist he teaches heresy. Period

[@salpezzino7803]

@@kimartist I love God's Holy law. So does every True Christian Now we know why he calls the HR, SDA and other Cultists his friends. What does he do with the Psalms? Rob calls those in the HRM his 'friends' and he calls me "a Dick"

[@simonskinner1450]

As a Praeterist I know sin sacrifices were apt until AD70 as both covenants were valid, and the milleniums ran between AD30 and AD70, when the only sin sacrifice valid and necessary was Jesus who by his own blood redeemed himself first. The high priest now in heaven taken by the Spirit, purges our past at baptism so those in Christ are no longer condemned, and those dead to sin and therefore sanctified shall be perfected when they die and are judged.

[@RockofAges-v5w]

No sin sacrifices were acceptable at any time after the death of Jesus Christ. The Talmud states the Yom Kippur sacrifice was not accepted by GOD for 40 years before the temple was destroyed. Look it up, it’s interesting how they knew this.

[@simonskinner1450]

@@RockofAges-v5w I was careful to use the word 'apt' because the old covenant still valid until the Temple was destroyed, there could be no atonement but ceremonies still carried on, as we find in Acts two covenants ran side by side until AD70.

[@RockofAges-v5w]

@@simonskinner1450 Seems we agree there was no atonement found in the temple sacrifice in those last 40 years. I have no gripe then.

[@simonskinner1450]

@@RockofAges-v5w The NT tells us that those "that are Christ's" when he returned to judgement in AD70, shall be raised, and that is the atonement of those "in Christ" that died between AD30 and AD70.

[@indo3052]

What are u talking about solberg. U admitted animal sacrafices will be required for sin in exekiel 40-48 being mellenial. You clearly stated in a recent live that Ezekiel 40-48 is mellenial kingdom .

[@factsRstubborn]

YOU PEOPLE ARE NOT OLD COVENANT ISRAEL!!! No one alive today was ever part of the old covenant of law or in a sacrificial system. This includes the final sacrifice of Christ. You don't need atonement for sin. why not??? SIN APART FROM THE LAW IS DEAD AND NOT IMPUTED!!

[@H0n3yc0mb7]

Do such believers such as Hegg feel anxious at the lack of opportunity to sacrifice currently? Do they experience a diminished presence of the Holy Spirit due to this temporal sin issue?

[@kimartist]

Good questions!

[@salpezzino7803]

@@kimartist do you think Hegg is a believer as HO claims?

[@XavierPutnam]

No.

[@H0n3yc0mb7]

@@XavierPutnam okay, I’m just trying to understand everyone’s views- If sacrifices are for being able to draw near to God on the earth, and the Holy Spirit is (depending on one’s view- the breath of Yah, a person of the Trinity, etc) are we still impure in that way today having not become covered over by sacrifice? And does that affect our relationship with The Holy Spirit, or is The Holy Spirit “immune” to that impurity? Or interacts less? Or is not the “fullness” with us so doesn’t apply? Or am I just completely butchering all of this in my lack of understanding? If so, please help me to understand.

[@kimartist]

​​@@salpezzino7803 I think they **think** they are believers - just like SDA & others - but just what exactly is IT in which they place their FAITH? "Oh yes we believe in Jesus, but..." 👀 The "but" is precisely the point at which Jesus says "I never knew you"? The only "fault" I see with Solberg is that he has a very large & compassionate heart, which gives him the patience necessary to deal with this soul destroying pap. You want him to quit?

[@TheRevelationDeception]

Lv17.11 = H9.13 For if the blood of he-goats and bulls and the ash of a heifer sprinkling those who having been made common, does hallow these to the cleanness OF THE FLESH." J6.63 The Spirit is the One making alive; THE FLESH not, yea in NOT one thing, does it benefit; the talks, which I, have spoken to you, ARE SPIRIT and life." H7.16 ".....who has NOT become according to THE LAW of the FLESHY INNER-AIM, but according to the ability of the indissoluble life."

[@BillFauci-vr6zr]

I am not a christian because of u Thank u solberb

[@salpezzino7803]

God uses false teaching to keep the Goats out of His Bride. Happy to see you go

[@Gigi2four]

Bill, You are not a Christian because you choose not to be. No one “causes” it.

[@salpezzino7803]

@@Gigi2four No One chooses to be a Christian

[@pierreferguson1300]

Truly, Jews and proselytes in Old Testament Judaism who do *NOT believe in Jesus, will need the animal sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood according to the order of Aaron as their way of life. *Note: I am NOT talking about Christians (Jews and Gentiles) in New Testament Christianity who believe in Jesus and only need the shed blood and one time death of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God for propitiation of all sins for all time, by a high priest from the tribe of Judah according to the order of Melchizedek. Blessed be His glorious name forever. Amen and Amen. Those who disagree w/ the above statement will delete this comment probably out of fear, not reverence.

[@6969smurfy]

Imfact, most Jewish people reject the lawless anti christ and the Greek trinity concepts. Like they should! christanity is to blame for this, and they'll find this out at the end! Messiah was 💯 % Torah! Follow HIM!

[@Zorcon741]

How come in Romans Paul tells us "theres no condemnation," and "we're free from the law,"... while to the corinthians giving them a whole list of sins that "they wont inherit the kingdom of God? "We dont have to do ANYTHING" ..well theres certainly things we cant do

[@soybeanfarmer4576]

Here’s another one out of many. 2Peter 3:15-19 tells the reader of Paul’s letters to be careful because they will think that we no longer have to keep the Torah, which will make us lawless (Transgressing the Torah).

[@salpezzino7803]

And those like Torah Keepers wont inherit the Kingdom. They rely on the law. Christians rely on Jesus Christ and His finished work on the Cross. Paul was making a point

[@salpezzino7803]

@@soybeanfarmer4576 what the heck? What is funny is that Peter was speaking about those who followed Paul around and persecuted him, beat him, stoned him, They couldnt understand him. You know who they were? Torah Keepers, his Countrymen. You people are so ignorant

[@soybeanfarmer4576]

@@salpezzino7803 2Peter 3:15-19 was not written to those that were persecuting Paul. 2Peter 3:1 starts out “This second epistle, beloved, I write unto you”. Whose ignorant here?

[@salpezzino7803]

@@soybeanfarmer4576 It is definitely you, I didn't say "to those" I said "about those" Too Funny.

[@garlandjones7709]

I enjoyed watching the video live. I just wanted to throw out, that the last thing I had hit on in the live section was what my indication was in our prior discussion with the wrong framing of your 60 sec. question. Hebrews 9:6-10 Now when these things have been thus prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle, performing the divine worship, but into the second only the high priest enters, once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in IGNORANCE. The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed, while the outer tabernacle is still standing, which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, since they relate ONLY TO FOOD AND DRINK AND VARIOUS WASHINGS, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation. He understands Leviticus 16 sin offerings to cover only what Leviticus 4 states that they're for, along with Leviticus 11-15. What the scapegoat was for, which was not sacrificed, nor had blood used for atonement, which was not handled by the high priest is what Yeshua atones for.

[@Christo-pv7eb]

Everytime you read “upon the altar”, you destroy Christianity. Jesus blood was nowhere near the altar.

[@6969smurfy]

Amen,Amen!

[@RooshkyBear]

If Paul was already a Jew why would he become a Jew again?

[@6969smurfy]

Christain Levin, you'll all ways thinks YAHshuas aka jesus sin sacrific is the same as Animal sacrifices. Human sacrifices are an abomination! There is NO comparison between the 2. Got Torah, Got Truth! Messiah was 💯 % Torah, follow HIM!

[@graysonbr]

Heard this quote by John Garr recently. "If you are not becoming more like Christ, you are doing your Hebraic heritage a disservice."

[@6969smurfy]

Rob, be the Berean, Test Everything to The OT, just as they did! the only scriptures they HAD. 119 it Rob, 119 it. Got Torah, Got Truth in Messiah!

[@tekttonics]

119 Ministries is about the most eisegetical source I've ever seen. They do the exact thing that Hegg did in his article above, which Solberg did an excellent job showing where Hegg misinterpreted and even ran counter to Scripture. That is to say, all the Torah-observant crowd (119 included) come to the text with the conclusion that the law is still required, and then read that conclusion into the Scripture, rather than letting Scripture inform our conclusion. Romans 7:1-6 Or do you not know, brothers-for I am speaking to those who know the law-that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

[@6969smurfy]

@tekttonics you stated all come to think torah/law is required. Loaded statement, nothing is required, it's free ALL free will. It's Thy Heart Matter. I Heart Torah! For I see the Wisdom in Fathers words, and How FATHER know Best for US. And IF HiS Son is described as The Torah ie Word made flesh why would I not choose to Follow HIM. Besides that, He's there to Help me back on Thy "Narrow Path" when I falter. For Religions teach the Wide Paths.....

[@tekttonics]

​@@6969smurfy 1. You can love the Torah and also recognize that it was applicable to the Israelites prior to the death of Christ, and thus not binding (though certainly permissible) on a believer of Christ. 2. The Son is described as the Word, not the Torah. The Torah is absolutely a part of God's plan, but to make an absolute equivalency between the Torah and Jesus is false. For example, the book of Hagar is a wonderful picture of Christ and His bride the church and is in God's Word, but Christ is not explicitly the book of Hagar. Or, similarly, the book of judges points to Christ as the righteous judge, but Christ is not Judges. God placed all these things in His scripture for specific purposes, and they all point to Christ, but are not Christ in and of themselves. Another example, divorce is permissible in the Torah. To claim that divorce is in any way a part of Christ's nature is very problematic. 3. Everything is a matter of the heart, you and I would agree on that. But that's a deflection if you believe that the Torah is more than just wise to follow, but is an actual requirement - because THAT is the actual difference between 'traditional Christianity' and the torah-observant community. If I ask you, "Should I eat kosher?" and you respond "It's a matter of the heart." Then you're actually agreeing that it is permissible but not required, and this would be in line with the New Testament teachings. However, if you respond that God has commanded all Christians to eat kosher, and if you don't, then you're in sin, that moves beyond preference into a requirement. You see the difference? Either position is a matter of the heart; either for obedience or rebellion, but one makes the Torah an obligation, not a matter of conviction.

[@RooshkyBear]

Robert: I’m not here to smear people online. Also Robert: Pronomian Christians are just Hebrew rooters. Why not invite Caleb Hegg to discuss your issues.

[@D.C.Harris]

That's essentially what is going on. Hegg wrote a paper, Solberg is responding in detail.

[@RooshkyBear]

@@D.C.Harris I’m not seeing a good response. How do you do deal with when Christ says those who keep the law and teach it are called great in the kingdom and those who teach not to keep the law are called least. Did Christ preach if you believe in Moses you would believe in Christ because he wrote about Christ. Did Paul forsake moses in acts 21? Did he tell people in Galatia not to circumcise to fulfill the law of Moses.

[@kimartist]

Jesus said the law & prophets were proclaimed until John the Baptist. After that, the Gospel of the Kingdom ✝️🕊

[@RooshkyBear]

@@kimartist when you say “until” you make the assumption that God has changed. If God is prefect, why the change? Only an imperfect being needs to change.

[@salpezzino7803]

@@RooshkyBear SFBs explain to everyone here, How Jesus's Bride had missed what the HRM teaches for 2000years While you are at give us 1 scripture where anyone instructs the Church to keep the law of Moses

[@kmountain5533]

The only sins atoned for or covered by animal sacrifices are “unintentional sins” and there was never any sin sacrifice for adultery, homosexual sin, incest or bestiality the Law commanded death for those sins.

[@TheBiblicalRoots]

Hi Kay. Intentional, rebellious sins ("high-handed" sins) were dealt with differently in the Torah, usually requiring repentance and, in some cases, more severe consequences like being "cut off" from the community. But on Yom Kippur, the nation as a whole was purified and reconciled to God through the sacrifices, rituals, and confession associated with the day, which allowed for a deeper cleansing of the people and the sanctuary. And better still, the sacrifice of Jesus covers *_all_* sin for those who place their faith in Him! Blessings, Rob

[@kmountain5533]

@@TheBiblicalRoots of course Jesus forgives all sin but if we deliberately sin after receiving the knowledge of Jesus Christ, there is no sacrifice for those sins - Hebrews 10:26. Which is what the Jews lived by under the OC. However, if we turn to Christ, and admit our intentional sinning after receiving His grace, He is just and faithful to forgive Yom Kippur was a prophetic sign and it is the LORD’s feast pointing to Jesus and His complete ability to forgive and purify those who come to Him. It is impossible that Israel was ever forgiven by animal sacrifice. Even King David after intentionally sinning against God by committing adultery (he had another man’s wife) and then having Uriah, the husband, murdered didn’t offer any animal sacrifice but repented through faith in God’s goodness. He really should have been stoned along with Bathsheba but thankfully he married her which protected her from being stoned to death for adultery because he was the King. No one had authority or power over King David. He was cursed by God for his sin even though he was pardoned. Animal sacrifices never pardoned the sinner and it to this day fuels witchcraft (the belief that animal and human sacrifice have magical power). The OT is very clear that only unintentional sins are covered by animal sacrifices. This would lead the Israelites to know that they need a sacrifice that would be powerful enough to forgive their intentional sins and cleanse these sins from them. And that is what the Yom Kippur Feast points to.

[@Badkharma21]

There is reference to the kingdom gospel which was Christs ministry to the Jews. This will be practiced during the Tribulation when the Holy Spirit, the restrainer, is removed and the bride of Christ raptured to heaven

[@Badkharma21]

sorry body of Christ...

[@Christo-pv7eb]

But according to your book satan is STILL the god of this world. So if Jesus said he was cast out, then Christianity again is false.

[@6969smurfy]

Very Observant you are.

[@pepepena1937]

@@Christo-pv7eb -“Satan is -*-STILL-*- the god of this World”- *ENLIGHTEN ME* if it says “And it shall come to pass on that day…..And the Lord shall become King over all the earth” Who is the King of earth *BEFORE* that day?

[@Christo-pv7eb]

@@pepepena1937 why you worried about the subject of king when Isaiah 54:5 says the LORD(not you Jesus) is God of the whole earth.

[@Christo-pv7eb]

@@pepepena1937 your false New Testament says Satan is the god of this world. Deal with it.

[@pepepena1937]

@@Christo-pv7eb -“it says the LORD (not your Jesus) is God of the whole earth”- No it doesn’t , it says *”SHALL* be called the God of all the earth.” Do you know the difference between *SHALL* and *IS* ?

[@Bouncer83]

There's no sacrificing for sins. I'm Torah observant and I don't expect to ever have to do it either.

[@Wisdoms_Inheritance]

Same, I am doing a deeper study on it though, but in being honest, it's not something I ever want to do.

[@debblouin]

Then you are not a Torah observer but an appreciator of the OT and its pointing to o Jesus. To keep (observe) Torah requires keeping ALL of it, feasts, offerings, days, AND sacrifices.

[@Bouncer83]

@@debblouin Only the levite priests were to sacrifice the animals. Have you ever read the Torah? What's the standard that we'll be judged by? Do we read Paul and interpret what we feel is sin and what isn't ourselves or do we look to where our Father gave us His words and instruction. Torah isn't just a set of laws to follow it's a instruction manual for how we are to live and walk. Set-apart or holy is defined by that and not by anything else. Deuteronomy 30 is a passage you should read too, is Moses a false prophet? he seems to think that before Messiah regathers us that we'll start obeying whatever he commanded us and that's who'll be regathered. Doesn't say those that believe like he's Santa clause he says those who obey all that he commanded them. Scripture is wrong though as usual and our interpretation is correct.

[@Bouncer83]

The red letters are for you too don't let anybody tell you any different. Messiah says his sheep will hear his voice. He gave the Torah to Moses on Sinai and appeared to the prophets so it's all his words not just the NT like people try teach.

[@Wisdoms_Inheritance]

@@debblouin You should study more, especially before replying, just a suggestion.

[@Truth-f2q]

Caleb won the deabte

[@teacherlynn671]

I thought Professor Solberg showed his points and is correct. But it shows there is still a lot of confusion in God’s word. For the answers, we will have to wait, but it doesn’t seem like it will be too long away now, does it?

[@kimartist]

This was not a formal debate. Did you watch the video?

[@harryabrahams2770]

@@teacherlynn671 there’s no ‘ confusion in God’s word’…the confusion is just people who love their theology more than they love truth….Yehoshua REDEEMED us from the CURSE of the LAW Galatians 3:13…the curse for sin was DEATH…there is NO ANIMAL SACRIFICE that can conquer DEATH..never has been..never will be..without the shed blood of YHVH the MESSIAH there would be NO RESURRECTION….there will be 2 resurrections …in the first resurrection there is NO SEPARATION of sheep and goats… Why is that??? Got Torah Got Truth

[@salpezzino7803]

so did Trump - BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

[@surethabadenhorst]

​@@harryabrahams2770 hi Harry, did you see my response to your previous question about where in scripture it says the 10 were kept in the Ark of the Covenant, the rest were to be kept outside? I'll share them here in case you missed it: Deuteronomy 31:26 1 Kings 8:9 2 Chronicles 5:10 Hebrews 9:4 Shalom

[@factsRstubborn]

YOU PEOPLE ARE NOT OLD COVENANT ISRAEL!!! No one alive today was ever part of the old covenant of law or in a sacrificial system. This includes the final sacrifice of Christ. You don't need atonement for sin. why not??? SIN APART FROM THE LAW IS DEAD AND NOT IMPUTED!!

[@coreybray9834]

@factsRstubborn 21 hours ago YOU PEOPLE ARE NOT OLD COVENANT ISRAEL!!! *But, we might be part of the Sabbath and Old Covenant strangers/Gentiles of Isaiah 56 mentioned just 3 chapters after Christ goes to the cross in Isaiah 53. You do realize the prophecy of Matthew 21 has Christ arguing that the Gentiles who receive the kingdom will succeed where the Jews failed, right? No one seems to be familiar with that little prophetic obligation these days.* No one alive today was ever part of the old covenant of law or in a sacrificial system. *So, then you believe Paul is wrong in Galatians 5:2-3? Because there are a lot of circumcised people even today, and Paul was under the impression that those who were circumcised were debtors to do the whole law by covenant obligation of being circumcised.* This includes the final sacrifice of Christ. You don't need atonement for sin. why not??? SIN APART FROM THE LAW IS DEAD AND NOT IMPUTED!! *That must be why we have continued to die for the last nearly 2,000-years after the cross, because no sin is being imputed in our case. LOL! What was truly comical is Paul boldly asked death where its sting was, and Paul is not alive today, because death answered with a nasty sting to let him know just how misinformed he truly was about the reach death had over him.