"When Aaron has finished making atonement for the Most Holy Place, the Tent of Meeting and the altar, he shall bring forward the live goat. He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites--all their sins--and put them on the goat's head. He shall send the goat away into the desert in the care of a man appointed for the task. The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place; and the man shall release it in the desert," (Lev. 16:20-22).
But is it possible that after the Temple was destroyed that G-d allowed alternative means of atonement?
That's the question.
To be fair, there's evidence for and against.
But I believe the greatest argument that there are NOT alternatives to blood sacrifice is found by combining Scripture with common sense:
If all that was needed for forgiveness was merely good works or repentance then...
- Why did Abel think that a blood sacrifice was necessary?
- Why did Noah think that a blood sacrifice was necessary?
- Why did Abraham think that a blood sacrifice was necessary?
- Why did Moses think that a blood sacrifice was necessary?