[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Raffi

I don't want to make anyone mad at me. However, there is an interesting point to this suggestion about sacrifices. I believe that the whole issue of the "abolition of animal sacrifice" has also been very misunderstood in modern Christian theologies.

Raffi, the New Testament teaches about what i said about animal sacrifices.

Hebrews 10:1-2 KJV For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. (2) For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

Animal sacrifices were for the purpose of removing sin. And if the old ones could have successfully accomplished that, they would have ceased. And if some claim they were not meant for that purpose, then why did Hebrews plainly sat that the work was never indicated as having been done by their offerings due to the fact that they remained standing, as opposed to Christ's work that indicated a finished accomplishment because He sat down?

Hebrews 10:11-12 KJV And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: (12) But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

You would not compare Christ finishing his purpose of sacrifice with the old covenant sacrifices by saying He sat down down whereas they did not, if their purpose never was to finish the issue of sin.

Since Christ finished the issue of sin and sat down to show that, then sacrifices were meant to take away sins. And since Christ accomplished that, then the work attempted by animal sacrifices is over. Those two verses say it all! They prove my point is correct.

There is a misunderstanding today about the reason, purpose, and nature of the sacrifice in Bible Religion. Furthermore, according to very specific Verses of The Torah, the sacrifices were to be kept so long as there was a Sanctuary active "in the place where I shall put My Name." That is in the Tabernacle and Temple. But The Temple no longer stands, and THAT is he reason the sacrifices do not take place today.

That is not what Hebrews 10 says was the reason.

As long as The Temple stood in Jerusalem, the Daily Sacrifice continued even after the Ascension of The Lord, and we are told that every day the Apostles would go to The Temple, obviously it was to participate in the daily prayer services that were associated with those sacrifices (Acts 2:46; 5:42).

The reason the apostles did that was because they had not yet received the full understanding of things like those written in Hebrews 10. They soon learned the truth of these issues. But it took decades, for they were receiving insight until the last book of the new testament was written. That means at the early point, they did not know those things, though they were true anyway.

And when Paul explained the difference between grace and law, he plainly noted that the reason he kept certain vows and sacrifices was not because God required it of him, but because he knew he could not reach Jews due to offence should he not be practicing those things.

1 Corinthians 9:20-21 KJV (20) And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; (21) To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

If it was The Atonement itself that did away with the sacrifices, why then are there so many prophecies that tell us clearly that animal sacrifice will be resumed in the future Kingdom Temple?
Isaiah 56:6-8
Zechariah 14:16
Jeremiah 33:15-18
Ezekiel 43:18-46:24

You are going to tell me that these are not to be taken literally, but they are allegory.

Of course they are allegory. If Christ plainly was the last sacrifice as Hebrews 10 claims, then those old sacrifices were shadows of Christ. And if they were shadows of Christ in the time in which they took place before the cross, then to write of Christ in a prophecy would include the use of the shadow as well. That's why Ezekiel spoke of sacrifices. They represent Christ. Otherwise Hebrews 10 is nonsense.

Sacrifice was not offered in the day of Daniel EVEN THOUGH he lived during the time you say was the Time of The Law of Moses. They did not slaughter lambs or goats in Babylon. Why? Because The Temple did not stand. Does that mean Daniel was in violation of The Torah?

In days of Old Covenant Law, of course they required the temple, and that is why Daniel did not offer. But that does not do away with the fact that Hebrews 10 says Christ put and end to sacrifices. Again, and I repeat this because SO MANY miss it... if those sacrifices were not meant to take away sins, and to end when they could achieve that goal, then why was Christ's finished work compared to their work as though to make theirs unfinished by virtue of the fact they COULD NOT SIT DOWN? You do not say their work was not something that was meant to remove sins once and for all if you turn around and then say their perpetual standing indicated an unfinished task.

And since God knew their sacrifices could never remove sin during that old covenant period, of course he would say they must offer so long as there is a temple in that covenant.

The Temple stood in the day of Messiah, and HE went to The Temple to attend the sacrifices. I tell you, people misunderstand these sacrifices, just like they misunderstand the Sabbaths.

No, brother, you are not getting the message of Hebrews 10.

If all sacrifices were abolished, why on earth did Paul pay for the sacrifices of himself and four other Hebrew Christians in Acts 21? So many years after the Ascension. Where have we been missing something in our theology?

1 Corinthians 9:20-21 KJV (20) And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; (21) To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.


....that's why.

I stand consistent in what I say here. These sacrifices were not abolished by Messiah but were ceased because The Temple was destroyed.

No, that conclusion is bereft of understanding in Hebrews 10 and 1 Cor 9.

The sacrifices will be resumed under the Messiah in a future rebuilt Temple in The Kingdom. Likewise, the Sabbath has not been abolished either. And the Sabbath will ALSO be enforced in the future Kingdom over ALL people. Yes, the sacrifices were merely "shadow", but as I have said before, shadow need not be removed merely because the substance is present and seen.

Of all the things I have said, I am pretty sure you are going to think this is my most heretical thing yet. But I am telling you, I am not saying anything that does not have Scripture to back it up.

Peace.

No, the most heretical thing you said was that the covenant of sin was represented by Hagar and Mount Sinai, rather than the actual Old Covenant of Israel. But speaking of Jesus' blood not ending sacrifices is very serious, too. Actually, on second thought, you're right. Tt IS more heretical than the Hagar issue, now that I think of it, because you are dealing with the shedding of blood.