Christianity is also flawed because Jeremiah warns that sacrifices alone won't save you. Christianity doubles down on the idea that it will with their singular, allegedly, final one. Hebrews 9:22 claims a monopoly on atonement through the blood of Jesus. However, there are many examples of atonement in the Tanakh without blood.
>Daniel lived in between the two temples and he told Nebuchadnezzar to atone by giving charity.
>The non-Jews of Nineveh were spared from God's wrath without any blood being shed.
>Solomon prophetically warns about what to do if there was no access to the temple.
>Even during the temple period if you were a broke ass poor nigga you could offer and ephah of flour
>God even forgives people simply because he is based and merciful.
Jews always had a basis for their religion in the absence of any temple.
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/leviticus-1711/

The Jewish God is indivisible and without peers. Jew's most important prayer is the Shema which affirms this singular God. They mean unity as singular and all encompassing (uni) whereas Christians think of unity as a harmony of several. Triune, a combination of the words tri and unity, is an oxymoronic expression of cognitive dissonance.
Another example of word games being played is the sacrifice of Jesus. Regardless of how the argument plays out of whether he is God or not the fact remains he is in the flesh of a man. This makes him completely ineligible to be a sacrifice at all. How do Christians cope with this very obvious prohibition on human sacrifice? They use a linguistic sleight of hand by calling him a lamb, the Lamb of God, and hope no one questions it. Even if Jesus was a furry and declared his fursona to be a lamb it still wouldn't count.
Why are Christians disingenuous wordcels?

>>510404065
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OYxADDluNI

>>510074066
>he really did die
No. Did the Father and the Holy Spirit also die or did he just let his meat suit get mutilated?