Cortes CVS

How misused: The speaker implicitly misuses passages related to atonement, such as Leviticus 17:11 ('For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life'), by asserting that 'Jewish tradition does not support the idea of someone dying for the sins of others, equating it to idolatry.' This misrepresents the concept of sacrificial atonement in the Torah, which, while not precisely 'vicarious' in the Christian theological sense, does involve the shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sins, offering a mechanism through which one's life (represented by blood) could atone. The speaker's interpretation seems to deny any form of substitutional atonement.

Scripture's answer: Leviticus 17:11 clearly links blood with atonement. While the Paschal lamb or sin offerings were not considered 'idolatrous,' the concept of one individual (like Jesus) paying for the sins of all humanity is where the speaker draws a distinction. However, to state that the idea of 'someone dying for sins' is entirely absent or 'idolatry' misses the nuance of sacrificial atonement within the Mosaic Law, which, by its nature, involves a life (of an animal) being offered in place of the sinner. The error lies in a blanket rejection of any substitutive principle even as applied to the temple sacrifices, implying a categorical denial of 'someone dying for the sins of others' even when that 'someone' is an animal sacrifice prescribed by God.

How misused: The speaker misinterprets Deuteronomy 18:15 ('The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—him you shall listen to') by claiming it predicts a prophet 'like Moses', not 'greater than Moses', and then uses this to invalidate Jesus because he 'changed' the Torah and 'claimed to be greater than Moses.' The 'like Moses' phrase is key for identifying the Messiah but does not preclude the Messiah from having a more profound or ultimate role. The error is in creating an artificial ceiling for the 'like Moses' characteristic, implying that any prophetic figure who brings a 'new covenant' or a deeper understanding of God's law cannot be 'like Moses.'

Scripture's answer: Deuteronomy 18:15-18 describes a prophet 'like Moses' who would speak God's words and to whom the people must listen. Christian theology understands this as fulfilled in Jesus, who, like Moses, was a lawgiver (e.g., Sermon on the Mount), a deliverer, a mediator of a covenant, and performed signs and wonders. While Jesus spoke with an authority that surpassed previous prophets and revealed the New Covenant, this does not contradict the 'like Moses' typology but rather fulfills it in a climactic sense. The phrase 'like Moses' refers to a prophet's role and authority, not a limitation on their spiritual stature or teaching. The speaker misconstrues 'like' as 'equal to and no more,' rather than 'possessing similar and possibly expanded attributes.'

How misused: The speaker quotes/alludes to Deuteronomy 34:10 ('And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face') to argue that 'no prophet like Moses would arise again in Israel,' thereby invalidating Jesus. This is a severe misinterpretation. Deuteronomy 34:10 speaks in the past tense, describing the period *up to the writing of Deuteronomy* (or at least its final compilation/annotation) and commemorating Moses' unique relationship with God *up to that point*. It does not function as a predictive prophecy stating that *no future prophet* could ever come who might share or even exceed Moses' stature in some ways, particularly one who would be 'like Moses' as predicted in Deuteronomy 18:15. The error is taking a historical observation as a perpetual, future-limiting prophecy.

Scripture's answer: Deuteronomy 34:10 is a retrospective statement about the unparalleled uniqueness of Moses among the prophets *up to that time*. It is an affirmation of Moses' singular role in Israel's early history and relationship with God. It does not contradict or negate the future prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:15 concerning a coming prophet 'like Moses.' That future prophet would indeed be 'like Moses' in specific roles (e.g., mediating a covenant, performing signs) but could also surpass Moses in other areas, especially concerning direct divine nature (in Christian theology). To use Deuteronomy 34:10 as a prohibition against any future 'prophet like Moses' is to misunderstand its temporal scope and purpose.

How misused: The speaker broadly asserts that 'The Old Testament (Torah/Tanakh) invalidates Jesus as a prophet because he 'changed' the Torah and claimed to be greater than Moses.' This is a collective misapplication. The Torah indeed has tests for prophets (e.g., Deuteronomy 13, 18), but the speaker interprets 'changing the Torah' (e.g., Jesus' teachings on divorce, sabbath, or specific laws) as automatically failing this test. This fails to acknowledge the prophetic tradition of reinterpretation, fulfillment, and elevation of the law's spirit over its letter as seen in many prophets and in Rabbinic Judaism itself, which evolves interpretation of Torah. Furthermore, Jesus' claims to 'fulfill' the law (Matthew 5:17-18) are distinct from 'abolishing' it.

Scripture's answer: The prophetic test in Deuteronomy 13:1-5 warns against prophets who lead people to worship other gods, and Deuteronomy 18:20-22 against those who speak presumptuously in God's name or whose prophecies do not come true. Jesus consistently pointed to the God of Israel and fulfilled prophecies. His teachings, even when they seemed to alter or deepen existing practices (e.g., 'You have heard it said... but I say to you'), were presented as a fulfillment and clarification of the Torah's ultimate intent, not its abolition. The claim to be 'greater than Moses' (e.g., Matthew 12:6, 'something greater than the temple is here') is understood in Christian theology as Jesus' divine authority, not a rejection of Moses' role but an elevation of the ultimate source of the law. The speaker interprets any recontextualization or deeper teaching of the Torah as 'changing' it in a way that automatically violates prophetic validity, which is an overly rigid and narrow interpretation of prophetic inspiration and development within the Mosaic tradition.

How misused: The speaker equates 'the idea of someone dying for the sins of others' with 'idolatry.' While traditional Judaism stresses that atonement comes through repentance, prayer, and good deeds, assisted by temple sacrifices (before its destruction), and explicitly rejects worshiping any being other than God, equating 'vicarious atonement' (however understood by the speaker) with idolatry is a significant misrepresentation of the concept. Idolatry fundamentally involves worshiping a false god or placing something/someone in God's unique position. While Christian theology places Jesus as both man and God, the concept of atonement through sacrifice (even if viewed as vicarious by Christians) is distinct from 'idolatry' unless Jesus himself is seen as a false god, which is not what the Christian concept of atonement inherently teaches.

Scripture's answer: The First Commandment (Exodus 20:3) forbids having other gods before YHWH. Idolatry is worshipping something or someone other than the one true God. While Jewish theology does not accept Jesus' divinity or the Christian concept of vicarious atonement, to label 'the idea of someone dying for the sins of others' as 'idolatry' is an oversimplification and mischaracterization. Sacrificial systems in the Torah involved blood atonement – a life for a life – which, while not perfectly analogous to Christian vicarious atonement, shows a foundational principle of substitution. The accusation of idolatry stems from the theological disagreement over Jesus' divine nature and role, rather than the act of 'dying for sins' in itself being inherently idolatrous.