Jesus on Jewish animal sacrifices?

[Robot iMonkey]

As it has been explained by several people, animal sacrifices were indeed once a necessary (Commanded by God so it could not be evil) part of the believers life, since the death burial and resurrection of Christ ended the need for animal sacrifice is was no longer necessary.

Just as the civil war made slavery 'no longer necessary'? Or were both a bad practice? Slavery is a part of US history. It does not make all Americans evil.

I can't speak for all of the rest of Christianity, only to what was once mandated before, and has since been completed by the blood of Christ.

The very concept of sacrifice is evil. In a court of law, the more thought and preparation put into a murder, the more sinister it is considered. So I would consider these ritualistic killings the most sinister ever imagined.

So, according to these doctrines of death, the animal sacrifices were no longer satisfying and God needed a human sacrifice? And the ideal candidate just happened to be outside protesting them??

So according to this line of reasoning, what is it about the Crucifixion if Jesus that even makes him a substitute for these animal sacrifices?
1) It's not at the temple.
2) I don't find anything in the book of Leviticus about how to sacrifice a human.
3) It's done by Romans, not Levi temple priests (Although I am sure they did WANT him dead.)

I'm sure somebody's answer will be all about the resurrection of Jesus. Yes, it is a great miracle. I have no disrespect for it. Amazing control over his own body. But isn't the fact that Jesus could raise someone ELSE from the dead even more miraculous? And Lazarus was dead FOUR days!

All you have to do is show (In it's proper context) where Jesus expresses His anger physically and verbally solely on the bases of animal sacrificing. With all you have to say about the subject it should be easy to point to a bunch of different verses that support all of the different angles you have represented in your arguments.

If this doctrine of death is what Jesus preached and not invented by Paul, show me where the actual disciples of Jesus found a message of salvation in his death and not in his teachings.

Jesus willingly went to the cross. He was not executed. All of Humanity could not take the life of Christ if He was not willing to die. that said, He allowed man to play out his own reasonings to bring Him to the cross, but as it is written The Blood of Christ is what takes the sins of the world away. Without this blood sacrifice we would still be sacrificing animals in order to try and obtain righteousness.

And the practice would still be satanic.

Apparently you are the only responding that can not see that if God gave the command to sacrifice animals, then that command can not be satanic. Look at the offering Cain and Abel offered to God:
Gen 4:
Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.
6 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."

Which lead to the first death in the Old Testament. Possibly self defense. It is unclear. God both curses and protects the killer, who moves away to live with other people... Hey! Where'd they come from?

What of the story of Isac and Abraham? What was given Abraham as a last minute sacrifice? Why were all of these animal sacrifices deemed appropriate (By God himself) if they were satanic in nature?

Yeah. That's a creepy story isn't it?

How do you reconcile all of the animal blood that was shed through the commands of God? Doesn't your bible have an old testament? Have you read it?

What was that message?

The Old Testiment is the history and practice Jesus came to FREE us from, preaching a new forgiveness of sin with a repentance practice of baptism. Washed in water. Washed in spirit. Not in blood. (animal or human)


Actually it would be more correct to say that the inquisition style attack squad is more of a Paulinian style "attack squad" Paul beat them out by about 1500 years or so. Also Paul makes mention of his back ground, so your "revelation" is an excepted part of Christian doctrine, so no, "your not the only one" here.

Sorry. That is out of order. Just like the explanations of Christianity looking at the execution of Jesus as a substitution sacrifice. In the old testament, the animal is killed AFTER the sin it is to cover. In the explanation of the death of Jesus, it is BEFORE we sin.

Am I the only one who can see that his practice of dragging followers of Jesus out of their homes to beat the crap out of them shows how strongly he rejected the message Jesus preached?
Am I the only one who can see that this dangerous man was on a road trip to make a hit when Jesus showed him who was really boss?
QUOTE]

Apparently in this instance you are the only one, who stopped reading about the conversion of Paul just before he repented of His sins. Or it should becoming more and more obvious even to you, that you have great difficultly understanding the most basic concept of repentance and forgiveness. If this is not so, then why do you think you are not able to apply those principles where scripture has applied them to Paul?

I will leave open what role the young man in his 20's, Saul, had in the plotting the death of Jesus. But he told Luke a lot of detailed information about the last week of the life of Jesus. (But says he never met him.) He found it safer to go into hiding for more than a decade. And then he invented a religion, separate from Judaism, but based on it's sacrificial teachings, separate from the teachings of Jesus, but celebrating the death of Jesus as a holy sacrificial death. (Which you now believe.) He was a Roman celebrating Roman freedom of religion by starting a new one. But later used his Roman citizenship as protective custody.

Have you read what the disagreement was about? Paul did not agree with Peter's stance on the gentiles. Peter was preaching a gospel heavily influenced by Jewish law and tradition. (starting at Gal 2:11)If Paul had his way, you would have to become a Jew before you could except Christ. Is this what you are advocating? Apparently not if you do not like some of the "satanic/Jew practices."

(I think you mean Peter instead of Paul there.) So what should be prized more highly? The message and practice of the actual teachings of Jesus (however you frame them), taught by the actual disciples of Jesus! And they clearly are NOT what Paul was teaching.

It is obvious that they are important to you so that you can justify what it is you have decided to pick and choose to believe of Christianity.. For those who are trying to reconcile the whole of scripture with our personal beliefs.. Not so much.

If Christianity according to Paul is so great, Keep explaining it it me.
But so far, I'd rather learn from Jesus than be baptised in his blood.

 

[drich0150]

Just as the civil war made slavery 'no longer necessary'? Or were both a bad practice? Slavery is a part of US history. It does not make all Americans evil.

Slavery was not a command from God, animal sacrifices were.

Just so we are on the same page here are some basic biblically based definitions:

Sin is, anything not in the expressed will of God.

Evil is, Malicious intent to commit sin.

Not all sin is Evil, but all Evil is sin.

So again if God commanded that animals were to be sacrificed then that command was indeed God's expressed will. If that command is apart of God's expressed will then it could not be a sin to sacrifice animals as He instructed the Jews to do. If animal sacrificing was not a sin, then in no way could it ever legitimately be considered "Evil."

Either you do not comprehend this very simple principle or you refuse to acknowledge it. Either way it is a truth of scripture that has to be confronted if you wish to continue to propagate your version of the gospel.

The very concept of sacrifice is evil.

If this were true then it could be said Christ is evil for being the sacrifice for the sins of the World, and the Father is Evil for offering his only Son as a sacrifice. If it is wrong to sacrifice animals in your system of belief then sacrificing a human/deity for the sins of another must be off the charts correct?

Make no mistake there is scripture to prove that Jesus was indeed to be considered a sacrifice for many.
Mt20:28
Mk10:45

In a court of law, the more thought and preparation put into a murder, the more sinister it is considered. So I would consider these ritualistic killings the most sinister ever imagined.

I see two major issues with your argument here. 1) The Jews commanded by God to make these sacrifices are not going to be put on trial in a popular modern court. They will be judged by the very same God who commanded that the animal sacrifices be done in the first place.. And 2) Animals are not people. If they were McDonald's would be in big trouble. (Because the premeditate the slaughter of millions and millions of cows every year.)

So according to this line of reasoning, what is it about the Crucifixion if Jesus that even makes him a substitute for these animal sacrifices?
1) It's not at the temple.
2) I don't find anything in the book of Leviticus about how to sacrifice a human.
3) It's done by Romans, not Levi temple priests (Although I am sure they did WANT him dead.)

1)There was no law that the Messiah was to be sacrificed at the temple (Even though he was given his death sentence there by the levities.)

2)A Human was not sacrificed. The Son of God was. Human sacrifice is not acceptable before God because we are all sinful. The animals brought before the Lord were without spot or blemish. (They represented a sinless existence) We all have "spots and blemishes"

3)Again there is no law that governed the death of the Messiah, only prophesy for telling how it was to happen. Isa 53 is a great example of one of these prophesies.

If this doctrine of death is what Jesus preached and not invented by Paul, show me where the actual disciples of Jesus found a message of salvation in his death and not in his teachings.

Take a good look at the two verses I left you and then add them to:
Mt26:14-30
Mk14:12-25

And the practice would still be satanic.

I Ask that before you respond Please Answer this one Question. If God commands it how can it be satanic?

Just because you don't understand something or have a distaste for it doesn't make something satanic, you do understand that You and your version of reality is not the measure of what is Holy. you do understand this right?


Which lead to the first death in the Old Testament. Possibly self defense. It is unclear.

Actually it is very clear that Cain was jealous of Abel and Cain killed Him because God found favor Abel and his sacrifice over Cain's non animal sacrifice.

God both curses and protects the killer, who moves away to live with other people... Hey! Where'd they come from?

You are missing the whole point of the passage in that God find Abel's animal sacrifice as good and wholesome. and Cain's non animal sacrifice as not good and lacking.

Yeah. That's a creepy story isn't it?

Again your foolishly ignoring the purpose of the story. That God delivered a lamb to be sacrificed in place of Abraham's Son.
If animal sacrifice was so bad then why is God advocating it with his commands to do so?

The Old Testament is the history and practice Jesus came to FREE us from, preaching a new forgiveness of sin with a repentance practice of baptism. Washed in water. Washed in spirit. Not in blood. (animal or human)

So you say with this last statement that, Jesus in John 6 Was.. "Mistaken" because it does not fit your doctrine? Where is your scriptural proof? (Chapter and verse?)

Sorry. That is out of order. Just like the explanations of Christianity looking at the execution of Jesus as a substitution sacrifice.

Please take the time to read carefully what is written, this nor the rest of your explanation addresses what was originally posted.
Heb 10:9-11 says otherwise.

But he told Luke a lot of detailed information about the last week of the life of Jesus. (But says he never met him.) He found it safer to go into hiding for more than a decade. And then he invented a religion, separate from Judaism, but based on it's sacrificial teachings, separate from the teachings of Jesus, but celebrating the death of Jesus as a holy sacrificial death. (Which you now believe.) He was a Roman celebrating Roman freedom of religion by starting a new one. But later used his Roman citizenship as protective custody.

And you know this because.... (I'm just guessing here) Someone who thinks as you do taught you to think this way, and there is no actual scriptural proof to back any of this up.. Or is there (Chapter and verse please)

(I think you mean Peter instead of Paul there.)

I guess you didn't bother looking in Gal 2 did you?

Paul Opposes Peter

11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
15"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. 17"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. 19For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"[d]

according to Galatians Paul was demanding that believers were to be circumsized...So evidently following Jesus around for the time that he did, don't make Peter immune to making big doctrinal mistakes. (Maybe this is one of the reason's why God sought out Paul to minister to the Gentiles.)

The message and practice of the actual teachings of Jesus (however you frame them), taught by the actual disciples of Jesus! And they clearly are NOT what Paul was teaching.

Evidently it was not what Peter was teaching in this instance either.. Or do you have a secret passage that shows Jesus circumcising Gentiles for forgiveness of sins..

If Christianity according to Paul is so great, Keep explaining it it me.
But so far, I'd rather learn from Jesus than be baptized in his blood.

That's fine you can do as you wish, just don't bring it to a place where people are looking to be "baptized in the Blood of Christ" and expect us to except this New Doctrine that apparently is only loosely based in scripture..

Because again You have spent a whole lot of effort explaining this new doctrine in great detail and yet somehow you still aren't able to show where Jesus teaches this doctrine as you have represented it. Your best efforts only amount to questioning canonical Scripture. Why do you think that is?

Please if your going to take the time to explain more of this "stuff" try (If possible) to back some of it up with actual scripture (Book, chapter and verse) and leave the personal interpretations to those who directly seek it from you.

Most of the believers here seek the truth according to God's word, and not from a robotmonkey.. So again if you wish to continue please show your proof in the form of Book, chapter and verse.

 

[Robot iMonkey]

I Ask that before you respond Please Answer this one Question. If God commands it how can it be satanic?

I'm not saying I would be a faithful Jew offering temple sacrifices. The prophets railed against the priests all Through the Old Testament. Jesus quotes one saying "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." (Hosea 6:6)

In the Old Testament, there is a lot of talk about Ba'al and other religious groups whom the Hebrews would follow after at various times. The records of who they were and their practices have been lost or deliberately destroyed. (Or at least I am not familiar enough with them to comment much.) Maybe I would be a follower of another group with kinder, gentler practices.

Why should I follow this monothistic faith if that one God is an evil personna that needs to be appeased by a constant flow of blood at the alter to him? (That meets the definition of satanic to me!) Other than somebody wrote it down and said do it, what makes that holy? When you go to church on Sunday, is that your definition of holy?

So, having brought up Ba'al and other groups, I'm not arguing that there IS more than one God. How many times was the universe created? I'm saying I want to worship the creator of the universe in a way / system where entering his presence is an experience or practice of peace and respect for 1)The Creator 2) all mankind and 3) all of nature. When the key feature of ancient Hebrew practice is, "Now, we kill the animal!" Ummm. Why should I follow this faith?

 

[drich0150]

In the Old Testament, there is a lot of talk about Ba'al and other religious groups whom the Hebrews would follow after at various times. The records of who they were and their practices have been lost or deliberately destroyed. (Or at least I am not familiar enough with them to comment much.) Maybe I would be a follower of another group with kinder, gentler practices.

The Origins of Judaism's reasoning for burnt offerings has not been lost to time. They can be found in exodus 20 Right after The 10 commandments were issued we find the original command that instituted this practice.

22 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites this: 'You have seen for yourselves that I have spoken to you from heaven: 23 Do not make any gods to be alongside me; do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold.
24 " 'Make an altar of earth for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, [b] your sheep and goats and your cattle. Wherever I cause my name to be honored, I will come to you and bless you. 25 If you make an altar of stones for me, do not build it with dressed stones, for you will defile it if you use a tool on it. 26 And do not go up to my altar on steps, lest your nakedness be exposed on it.'

I'm not saying I would be a faithful Jew offering temple sacrifices. The prophets railed against the priests all Through the Old Testament. Jesus quotes one saying "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." (Hosea 6:6)

The reason all of these things occurred is because the "leaders" in Jesus's time and in the past forgot why they were doing what they were doing and just focused on the what, and what they could get away with. To God our reasons are more important than our ultimate actions.

Why should I follow this monotheistic faith if that one God is an evil personna that needs to be appeased by a constant flow of blood at the alter to him? (That meets the definition of satanic to me!)[/QUOTE]

That's just it, you are not, nor is your opinion the gold standard for all that is holy. Just because you do not understand what holy is, doesn't make an act that God sanctioned any less Holy. That is unless you believe that The Master and Commander of the universe, and all that is in it, has to get your approval before he can deem something Holy.

Other than somebody wrote it down and said do it, what makes that holy? When you go to church on Sunday, is that your definition of holy?

the simple definition of Holy is "Set apart for the service of God."
What Makes something Holy is an object or ritual's intended usage.

Church can be holy but more often than not it is not.

What makes the sacrifice of animals Is the direct command issued by God to do so.
God is the authority here not you or I.

"Now, we kill the animal!" Ummm. Why should I follow this faith?

Can you point out anywhere where anyone says we must still kill animals in order to be found righteous before the Lord.

The argument before you was one of historical relevance. The blood shed by the animals was to point the the Coming of the Lamb of God. After He dies there was no need for anymore animals to be sacrificed. Because God's need for the shedding of blood has be quenched in the shedding of the Blood of the Lamb for the sins of the world... we were told the wages of sin (any sin big or small) is death. the offerings were a reminder of the penalty/punishment a righteous God has for all sinners.

With all you had to say you still didnot answer my very direct Question, I have taken the time to answer your questions at length. i Have only ask you (so far) to directly answer this one:

If God commands something, How can it be considered satanic?

(I don't know is a valid answer) I do require an answer if we are to continue.

 

[Robot iMonkey]

If God commands something, How can it be considered satanic?

I am the product of a society where freedom of religion is an expected civility. However, not all religions are equal. In some religions, they love their neighbors. In others, they eat them. Do you have a preference? I do. In this free marketplace of ideas, a faith is not above evaluation. It should stand on its merits. I have made it quite clear what I find objectionable in 1) historical Hebrew practices 2) Paul and Christianity as preached by Paul. On the other hand, I find the actual teachings of Jesus to be good reading and a good foundation for building a community for healthy spiritual practice. I wish I could find a church that did that.

So, back to your question: If God commands something, How can it be considered satanic? If it looks like a satanic ritual and smells like a satanic ritual I don't have a problem with calling it a satanic ritual. It just makes me question their definition of 'GOD'. As I have said, I find the very concept of animal and human sacrifices satanic. What about that do you not understand?

 

[drich0150]

It just makes me question their definition of 'GOD'.

Perhaps it is not "their definition of God" that you should question.

Without the unchanging standards found in the bible "God" can be whatever you want it/him to be. If you seek a god who is not the God who commanded the nation of Israel to perform animals sacrifices, nor is He the God Paul worships or describes, then it is obvious you do not seek the God of the bible.

If this is the case then this revelation should free you to mold and worship a god of your own design. A god who does not condone any of the seemingly satanic behavior the God of the bible has commanded. (As evidenced by page after page in this thread of personal doctrine and philosophy.)

 

[Robot iMonkey]

Finding freedom in the gospel according to Jesus!

I was hoping I find others with a theology based more deeply in the words and teachings of Jesus than in the Old Testiment or the sacrificial perspective taught by Paul. But it's clear that's not you.

This forum is called "Exploring Christianity A Forum for Non Christians to explore Christianity with Christians." If you are too offended by encountering non-traditional Chrisitan thought here, please keep your reading and posting to other areas of this message board.

 

[drich0150]

But it's clear that's not you.

What is clear is that you call the God of Moses, David, and Jesus satanic, because you have judged the commands of God and have found them wanting in accordance to your own version of righteousness. What is also clear it that you have decided to edit the bible and the teaching contained with in scripture to come up with a new Monkey Robot Doctrine, where you focus on the scraps scripture left over from your butchering process to semi justify your thoughts. But for the some reason you still want to call it christianity.

This forum is called "Exploring Christianity A Forum for Non Christians to explore Christianity with Christians." If you are too offended by encountering non-traditional Christan thought here, please keep your reading and posting to other areas of this message board.

Respectfully it is you who came here "Exploring Christianity." So it is you who is holding up what you believe to the Christian standard. In other words You're the one doing the exploring. I am helping you "explore your faith" by comparing what it is you believe to accepted doctrine. So it seems your advise to me can be considered a double edged sword here, Because if you find offense in the comparison of your monkey robot faith, with true Christianity, then you to also have the option to "keep your reading and posting to other areas of the message board."

What did you think exploring Christianity meant? that you get to come here and label what you want to believe as "christian" and we all circle around and intently listen to what you have to say and not question anything?

Christianity is not marketing label one applies to personal philosophies to add a sense of legitimacy. In order for one to be "Christian" There are certain aspect of Christianity one must respect and adhere to. Yielding to the supreme authority of the Father is one of them(Not calling God or His commands satanic for example), The other is building one's faith around the works of the Holy Spirit (That can be found in the whole of scripture) is another.

Without these two very basic foundational principles one could not even begin to form a foundation in which to build the very basic faith it takes to accept Jesus as your Lord and savior. If you do not Love the Father, then why seek the Son? If you do not believe in the whole of scripture then how do you know any of what you read about Jesus is true?

At best you have mixed the fear, anger and hatred fanatic Muslims can typically have for blood sacrifice, with a general anti-Semitisim, adding a little new age spirituality, with a Mormon's need to be considered a christian (even though your doctrine is not), all together with a whole lot of personal pride, and very little scripture to come up with what I have been calling your Monkey Robot faith. You need to know and except this is not "Christianity."

Christianity is a great deal more than the works of Jesus during the 3 or so years of His ministry. The whole of the Old testament sacrifices and everything else, all point to one event, to One Man, to One God. Like wise all of the time after the Death burial and resurrection also point back to one Man, One God, and the freedoms and allowances this one event encompasses. To focus on just one small aspect of God's great bountiful gift to us, to the purposeful exclusion of everything else is at best near sited. We have to do our best to look at all that God has given and done for us, not just the parts we want to approve of. Who are any of us to Judge God or his commands?

Is this the legacy you wish to present to God on the day of your judgment? That you judged God, and found His apostle to the Gentiles wanting, along with the whole of the Old testament? What can you say when you shows you the amount of pride you expended to have these beliefs, without any scripture or anything else to back up what you believe? What could you possibly say then?

 

[Robot iMonkey]

*Ignoring most of the general hatred expressed toward me there*
I never called Jesus satanic. I said celebrating the sacrifice of Jesus is satanic.
Let's get back to the foundational difference we have.

Conceptually, I understand your doctrine that God needed to kill something as a substitution for killing us. I just find that as a disgusting way of looking at both God and at mankind.

Getting back to Jesus, I assume you would say the practice of baptism is a foreshadowing of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus because Jesus had to die as a substitutionary sacrifice for all of our sins for all of mankind.

I have explained why
1) killing animals in the name of God is reprehensible.
2) why I don't see the great leap from killing animals to killing Jesus.
I would say the death burial and resurrection of Jesus is an illustration of baptism. Baptism for the forgiveness of sin (instead of temple sacrifices) is what John and Jesus practiced and preached all through the gospels. Show me in the words of Jesus and his actual disciples (Paul wasn't) where that is wrong.

 

[drich0150]

At some point like the rest of the people responding to this thread, I will have to stop throwing pearls of wisdom before swine.

We are just going over and over things now. When I confront you with a biblical truth you just ignore it, feign igorance, or attribute the difference in understanding as my misinterpertation.

My confused brother you have my prayers, but if you want any more attention from me you will have to be the one who provides proof for Your Monkey Robot Doctrine... The Gospel through the BLOOD Sacrifice of Jesus has been well established. Now it is time to use the bible legitmatly to support your claims rather using it's silence on what you have misinterpereted as a form of conformation of your New Doctrine.

So please without any more delay, So all who still care to read this broken thread can see where exactly the bible supports your claims and Doctrine as you have repersented them... (If you can)

 

[brinny]

What did Jesus say about animal sacrifices conducted at the temple?
If no clear sayings, what is the general Christian interpretation about
His views, actions or attitudes toward the animal sacrifices practiced at the Jewish temple during his years of ministry?

God Himself conducted the first animal sacrifice, did He not? Is it possible that's how heinous God finds sin to be? Would that possibly have anything to do with the necessity of an animal sacrifice?

 

[rimmel2]

Jesus was born"under the Law" and thus had to observe the rituals and ceremonies of the Old Covenant until they were fulfilled by His death and resurrection.

 

[razeontherock]

True. It's more than a bit disturbing to read people posting "manna" or even "the blood of bread" (?) replaces animal sacrifice.

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [as] silver and gold, from your vain conversation [received] by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:" 1 Peter 1:18

"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And [having] an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." Hebrews 10:19-22

So many want to skip over His current Priesthood ..

 

[GregorytheGood]

The Prophets all state that God NEVER commanded or desired human or animal sacrifice. this is SCAPEGOATING. The only way to END it, and not feed the human desire for scapegoating was to passively become it's victim. Thus Jesus ENDS sacrifices because they are a cycle of evil.

Throughout the Prophets and Gospels, we are told that God hates bloodshed and violence. Killing innocent victims is an abomination to the Lord.

This is also why many Jews at that time, such as the Essenes and Nazoreans, as well as the original Jewish Christians, including the Ebionites (poor ones), The Way, and the Nazoreans all rejected animal sacrifice and DID NOT EAT MEAT. That's right, according to historical authorities such as Josephus, Pliny the Elder, Philo, and Eusebius, all of these early Jewish followers of Christ abstaines from eating flesh-meat.

Gregory

 

[CelticRebel]

So I am the only Christian in the world that thinks that the very concept of animal sacrifice is an evil Satanic practice, no matter who was doing it?
I'm the only one who sees that the religious leaders who were doing this were the exact target of Jesus' anger expressed both physically and verbally?
I'm the only one who can see that the message of baptism and repentance of sin without the practice of animal sacrifice is what made John and Jesus targets and what got them executed?
I'm the only one who can see that the message they preached did have an impact on the Jewish people to the extent that when this temple of Satanic sacrifice was destroyed a few years later, the Jewish people did not rebuild it, and, over time have changed their faith to focus on the teaching of a newer book, the Talmud instead of the Torah so most branches of Judaism do not desire the return of animal sacrifices?
Am I the only one who cares about the message Jesus preached, instead of the message Paul preached in celebration of the execution of Jesus?
Am I the only one who can see that Paul "holding the coats" at the stoning of Steven shows he is the boss over an inquisition style attack squad?
Am I the only one who can see that his practice of dragging followers of Jesus out of their homes to beat the crap out of them shows how strongly he rejected the message Jesus preached?
Am I the only one who can see that this dangerous man was on a road trip to make a hit when Jesus showed him who was really boss?
Am I the only one who reads these things about Paul and what few things he directly says about Jesus and can see he hates the One Whose teachings I desire to follow, except when eulogizing him?
Am I the only one who see that Peter and the other disciples rejected Paul at Antioch?
Am I the only one who sees these things as important?

I agree with you 100%. I hope you see this.

 

[parsley]

Some people teach that God required the first sacrifice. But as shown in the Cain/Abel story, Abel offered it to God out of thoughtfulness, probably like we would make a nice meal for guests. God did not require it.

There were other instances taught as God-required, which the Hebrew scriptures show as human-initiated.

Genesis 31:54
Then Jacob offered a sacrifice on the mountain, and called his kinsmen to the meal *; and they ate the meal and spent the night on the mountain.

Genesis 46:1
So Israel set out with all that he had, and came to Beersheba, and offered sacrifices

(Their choice. Also Exodus 3:18, Exodus 5:3)



There is also the concept of people making covenants with each other by splitting and passing between.

Matthew 9:13 also 12:7
"But go and learn what this means: 'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Mark 12:33
AND TO LOVE HIM WITH ALL THE HEART AND WITH ALL THE UNDERSTANDING AND WITH ALL THE STRENGTH, AND TO LOVE ONE'S NEIGHBOR AS HIMSELF, is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."


Later within the Law of Moses, these offerings are shown as being meals for the priests and their families, and sometimes for the donor. If not vegetarian, the ceremony was an improvement from doing it on the farm, as the priests took great measures to make sure the process was clean and less painful. There was remorse involved, not just for sins but for the expense of a life of an animal that had lived on their farm.

I know, that makes it sound worse. But picture people not having grocery stores and restaurants -- they had to commit a painful act if they were planning to eat meat. (Fish was a staple; meat was probably a luxury.)


Acts 7:42
But God turned away and delivered them up to serve the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, 'IT WAS NOT TO ME THAT YOU OFFERED VICTIMS AND SACRIFICES FORTY YEARS IN THE WILDERNESS, WAS IT, O HOUSE OF ISRAEL?



John 1:29, also 36 The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him and *said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!


Mark 14:12
On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb was being sacrificed, His disciples *said to Him, "Where do You want us to go and prepare for You to eat the Passover?"

Acts 8:32
Now the passage of Scripture which he (Messiah) was reading was this: "HE WAS LED AS A SHEEP TO SLAUGHTER; AND AS A LAMB BEFORE ITS SHEARER IS SILENT, SO HE DOES NOT OPEN HIS MOUTH.

1 Peter 1:19

Revelation 6:7, also Revelation 8:1
When the Lamb broke the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature saying, "Come."