Was Jesus Sacrificed for the Jews ?

[Iloveu2]

According to the rules and regulations of the Old Testament the death of Jesus and the manner in which he died would not be an acceptable sacrifice according to the requirements of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There were very strict rules about sacrifices. There were also different types of sacrifices for different purposes. I quote from the King James version of the bible:

I quote as follows:

“But if his means are insufficient for two turtledoves or two young pigeons, then for his offering for that which he has sinned, he shall bring the tenth of an ephah 5 of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall not put oil on it or place incense on it, for it is a sin offering.” (Leviticus 5:11)

This is very interesting, but seriously damaging to the Christian doctrine. If birds could not be afforded, some simple flour could be used instead and would be just as effective in the eyes of Israel’s CREATOR. The scriptures are quite clear on this. Since flour could be used for a sin offering, it is evident that blood was not the sole means of atonement. The Christian position that only the shed blood of ‘Jesus’ could atone for sins is falling by the wayside in light of the Holy Scriptures. Actually, considering the beating and torture which ‘Jesus’ is said to have suffered at The hands of the Romans, you have to wonder why he didn’t just bring a sack of flour to the Romans and let them whip, beat, mock and crucify it instead!!!

Another focal point of the NT is the Christian claim that the crucifixion of ‘Jesus’ served as the final atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. However, if the sacrificial instructions set forth by the Law of Moses are examined closely, and you see the guidelines set forth for how sacrifices are to be brought, it will be clear that ’ Jesus’ could never serve as an atoning sacrifice. Clearly, not just any blood shed in any manner would satisfy the biblical requirements for atonement. Notice the instructions set forth in the Torah concerning sacrifices:
“For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls…” (Lev. 17:11)

Notice that the blood of the acceptable sacrifice was to be shed upon the holy alter of the temple, and not on the pagan phallic symbol of the cross. Clearly, not any spilled blood is acceptable as a sacrifice. CREATOR of Israel set forth very meticulous rules and laws governing acceptable sacrifices brought to Him. “Jesus’” crucifixion m ay qualify as an atonement according to the Greek Testament of Mithraisum but since his blood was not offered on the altar, it is not in compliance with what The Holy Scriptures of Israel’s CREATOR requires.

There are many other factors that would render the crucifixion of ‘Jesus’ an unacceptable sacrifice according to scriptural guidelines. According to the Biblical rules in Leviticus, all sacrifices had to be offered by a Levite Priest, a descendant of Aaron. According to the “gospel” accounts, ‘Jesus’ was killed by pagan, gentile Ro man soldiers.

 

[Iloveu2]

continued :

Biblical law also prohibited any sacrifice that was blemished or maimed:
"Ye shall offer at your own will a male without blemish, of the beeves, of the sheep, or of the goats. But whatsoever hath a blemish, that shall ye not offer: for it shall not be acceptable for you. And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offerings unto [YHWH] to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in beeve s or sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein. Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wen [cyst], or scurvy, or scabbed, ye shall not offer these unto [YHWH], nor make an offering by fire of them upon the altar unto [YHWH]. (Leviticus 22:19-21).

Now we have a problem. The “gospels” of the NT clearly teach that ‘Jesus’ was beaten and whipped, which would have made him blemished and maimed and therefore an unfit sacrifice. 6 Frequently, Christians react to this line of reasoning by protesting that it is improper to be so literal, and that “Jesus’” death was more of a symbolic or spiritual sacrifice. Christians will insist, indeed the NT itself makes the claim, that ‘Jesus’ was literally our Passover sacrifice. Remember in the book of John, when the Roman soldiers pierced ‘Jesus’ [after he was already dead, mind you]? Here we are told that they did not break his legs 7 because this would violate the rules of the proper Passover sacrifice:

“But coming to ‘Jesus,’ when they saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs…in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled: Not a bone of him shall be broken.” (John 19:33-36)

The gospel of John portrays ‘Jesus’ as the Passover lamb which was not supposed to have any of its bones broken (cf. Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12). If Christians insist that ‘Jesus’ was the literal Passover sacrifice, and his blood atoned for our sins, then ‘Jesus,’ as that sacrifice, was subject to the literal guidelines set by the La w of Moses given by CREATOR of Israel governing an acceptable sacrifice. Christians always seem to want to have it both ways. The NT itself proposes that ‘Jesus’ was a literal sacrifice. When confronted with the clear Biblical instructions on how acceptable sacrifices were to be offered, however, they will complain that this is just legalistic nit picking.

Throughout the Bible, Israel’s CREATOR says that one person cannot die for the sins of another:
“Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deuteronomy 24:16)

“But everyone will die for his own sin; each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge” (Jeremiah 31:30)

“The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself” (Ezekiel 18:20)

“He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous, both of them are an abomination to the Lord” (Proverbs 17:15).

“No man ‘Jesus’ included] can by any means redeem his brother, or give to ‘God’ a ransom for him” (Psalms 49:7)

Unlike the Greek Testament, The Holy Scripturesof the One True CREATOR of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob clearly teach that we are responsible for our own actions and sins. We alone must account and pay the price. No virgin born savior deity from Babylonian mythology can contradict the clear instructions of CREATOR of Israel. Now the reader is faced with the question of why two theologies are evident when the Old Testament is compared with the NT?

You can read more here:

uhcg.org/HoI/blood-not-req.html

 

[FCEGM]

Many didn’t acknowledge Him then; many want to continue in the same denial. Why are you as a Christian bothering with that site?

Christ Who is the Lord of the Sabbath is free to remove the formalistic rigorism of the Pharisees (Mk. 2:27). Divince Charity takes precedence over material observance. What is true regarding the observance of the sabbath holds true regarding His death since it is a death in Divine Charity, for the Jews and for all. No man is worthy to atone for the sins of all, but God Incarnate is.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

Jesus wasn’t a human sacrifice, but he sacrificed his life by not being threatened into silence of preaching God’s Kingdom. For his obedience God placed him in the role of Messiah, which includes being High Priest like Melchizedek who takes our prayers to God to make atonement for our sins.

Thus our prayers of repentance are the real offerings and sacrifice for sin, not the death of Jesus.

If you don’t repent and acknowledge Jesus as the High Priest, then you don’t receive atonement and you die in your sins.

 

[Iloveu2]

Faith of Abraham:

Your quote: “Thus our prayers of repentance are the real offerings and sacrifice for sin, not the death of Jesus.”

So, this means the Jews who repent of their sins are accepted and forgiven by God? I agree.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

Faith of Abraham:

Your quote: “Thus our prayers of repentance are the real offerings and sacrifice for sin, not the death of Jesus.”

So, this means the Jews who repent of their sins are accepted and forgiven by God? I agree.

Not if they don’t accept Jesus is High Priest who takes those prayers to God to make atonement for them. They are as a thief trying to steal forgiveness by going around Jesus.

John 10:1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

 

[Iloveu2]

FCEGM: your quote:

“Why are you as a Christian bothering with that site?”

I am making the observation that neither the Jews or their Old Testament are too popular on this Catholic forum. I can’t help but remind you that without the Old Testament there would be no Christianity. The Old T. is quoted in the New T. constantly and the New T. is based on the Old T. from beginning to end.
If you read the New T. and dispense of or take out all of the references and prophecies pertaining to the Old T. there is very little left of Christianity.
Is it wrong for me to read the Old T. ? Is not the Father Jesus speaks of “our” Father, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

 

[dessert]

Not if they don’t accept Jesus is High Priest who takes those prayers to God to make atonement for them. They are as a thief trying to steal forgiveness by going around Jesus.

John 10:1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

But the high priest carries the blood, (Hebrews 13 ) so what blood did he carry if not His own? Maybe I am misunderstanding you?

 

[ryanoneil]

According to the rules and regulations of the Old Testament the death of Jesus and the manner in which he died would not be an acceptable sacrifice according to the requirements of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There were very strict rules about sacrifices. There were also different types of sacrifices for different purposes. I quote from the King James version of the bible:

You are forgeting Genesis chapter 22. Abraham told Isaac that “God himself will provide the sheep for the holocaust”, in verse eight. You are also forgetting that second law deals with Israel’s fallen condition after the golden calf affair. The sacrificial system was imposed as a kind of corporate penance upon the whole nation. The three animals that God had Israel sacrifice - cattle, sheep and goats - were all venerated as divine by the Egyptians. God was dealing with Israel as if the people were addicted to idolatry.

God did not originally desire animal sacrifice. He had no need that millions upon millions of cows and goats be slaughtered. Instead, God wanted praise, a humble and contrite spirit and walking in His ways.

Psalms 50:8-10 Not for your sacrifices do I rebuke you, nor for your holocausts, set before me daily. I need no bullock from your house, no goats from your fold. For every animal of the forest is mine, beasts by the thousands on my mountains.

Psalms 51:18-19 For you do not desire sacrifice; a burnt offering you would not accept. My sacrifice, God, is a broken spirit; God, do not spurn a broken, humbled heart.

YOU SHOULDN’T BE FORCING SACRIFICIAL REQUIREMENTS ON GOD THAT WERE IN PLACE BECAUSE OF ISRAEL’S APOSTASY!

Peace,

Ryan

 

[ralphinal]

Wow. Wow. Wow.

How many sin offerings were there? How many times were they offered? Ask this question. Over a year…over a lifetime…over the lifetimes of all God’s people…how many? Once you answer this, I will continue

 

[FCEGM]

FCEGM: your quote:

“Why are you as a Christian bothering with that site?”

I am making the observation that neither the Jews or their Old Testament are too popular on this Catholic forum.

Utter nonsense!

I can’t help but remind you that without the Old Testament there would be no Christianity. The Old T. is quoted in the New T. constantly and the New T. is based on the Old T. from beginning to end.

Any Catholic worth his salt knows that, so you are preaching to the choir.

If you read the New T. and dispense of or take out all of the references and prophecies pertaining to the Old T. there is very little left of Christianity.
Is it wrong for me to read the Old T. ? Is not the Father Jesus speaks of “our” Father, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

Did I say anything about not reading the Old Testament? We cannot fully appreciate the New without reference to the Old. The site you quote, however, is only anti-Christian commentary and NOT the Old Testament. So, again, why are you as a Christian posting from that site? If it is to seek a Christian response to such anti-Christian claims, that is one thing; if it is to promote those anti-Christian claims, it is another.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

But the high priest carries the blood, (Hebrews 13 ) so what blood did he carry if not His own? Maybe I am misunderstanding you?

Jesus takes our offerings of repentance and asking of forgiveness to God for us.

We don’t kill Jesus and present Jesus to God as the sacrifice.

 

[Iloveu2]

FCEGM

Sorry, one of us isn’t understanding things right. I’m quoting from the Old T. bible. You can look up the verses. I don’t believe I checked out the whole website or the link.

 

[dessert]

Jesus takes our offerings of repentance and asking of forgiveness to God for us.

We don’t kill Jesus and present Jesus to God as the sacrifice.

I didn’t say we kill Jesus at the Mass, He has and is the sacrafice as His sacrafice was washed by the blood and water.
We never say the Jews killed Jesus. He is the high priest.

 

[ryanoneil]

“No man ‘Jesus’ included] can by any means redeem his brother, or give to ‘God’ a ransom for him” (Psalms 49:7)

Are you a christian who is a protestant or are you protesting christianity?

Do you believe these statements or are you asking for refutation of them?

Matt 20:28
*Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many." *

1Tim 2:5-6
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

Peace,

Ryan

 

[FCEGM]

FCEGM

Sorry, one of us isn’t understanding things right. I’m quoting from the Old T. bible. You can look up the verses. I don’t believe I checked out the whole website or the link.

What you quote from the Old Testament is then commented upon in an anti-Christian manner. The OT verses are correct; the commentary, being anti-Christian, isn’t. For example, from your original post:

Another focal point of the NT is the Christian claim that the crucifixion of ‘Jesus’ served as the final atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. However, if the sacrificial instructions set forth by the Law of Moses are examined closely, and you see the guidelines set forth for how sacrifices are to be brought, it will be clear that ’ Jesus’ could never serve as an atoning sacrifice.

Please tell me where this can be found in any version of the Old Testament.

 

[FCEGM]

Are you a christian who is a protestant or are you protesting christianity?

Do you believe these statements or are you asking for refutation of them?. . .

Precisely, ryan.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Christ was sacrificed for everyone, including the Jews. In the words of Saint Paul who was a Jew:

“Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men” (Romans 5:18)

“All men are implicated in Adam’s sin” (CCC 402)

 

[ralphinal]

Well, no one tried to answer me, so I will do so myself.

No one knows how many times the sin offering was performed. It was repeeted as needed

Now many times did Jesus have to die on the cross?

One time. One sacrifice for all mankind

So, even if this was not done the way every other sacrifice was done, it was more acceptable to the Father?

yes, because it was the offering of the Lamb that He himself provided, done once and for all mankind. God chose this offering Himself, so to say it was not done in a way pleasing to him is a major, major issue

What do you mean?

God said, this is how I will save the world. No more sacrifices, no more need. Who are we to question Him? Who are we to say he is wrong?

 

[ckonrad]

According to the rules and regulations of the Old Testament the death of Jesus and the manner in which he died would not be an acceptable sacrifice according to the requirements of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There were very strict rules about sacrifices. There were also different types of sacrifices for different purposes. I quote from the King James version of the bible:

I quote as follows:

“But if his means are insufficient for two turtledoves or two young pigeons, then for his offering for that which he has sinned, he shall bring the tenth of an ephah 5 of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall not put oil on it or place incense on it, for it is a sin offering.” (Leviticus 5:11)

This is very interesting, but seriously damaging to the Christian doctrine. If birds could not be afforded, some simple flour could be used instead and would be just as effective in the eyes of Israel’s CREATOR. The scriptures are quite clear on this. Since flour could be used for a sin offering, it is evident that blood was not the sole means of atonement. The Christian position that only the shed blood of ‘Jesus’ could atone for sins is falling by the wayside in light of the Holy Scriptures. Actually, considering the beating and torture which ‘Jesus’ is said to have suffered at The hands of the Romans, you have to wonder why he didn’t just bring a sack of flour to the Romans and let them whip, beat, mock and crucify it instead!!!

Another focal point of the NT is the Christian claim that the crucifixion of ‘Jesus’ served as the final atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. However, if the sacrificial instructions set forth by the Law of Moses are examined closely, and you see the guidelines set forth for how sacrifices are to be brought, it will be clear that ’ Jesus’ could never serve as an atoning sacrifice. Clearly, not just any blood shed in any manner would satisfy the biblical requirements for atonement. Notice the instructions set forth in the Torah concerning sacrifices:
“For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls…” (Lev. 17:11)

Notice that the blood of the acceptable sacrifice was to be shed upon the holy alter of the temple, and not on the pagan phallic symbol of the cross. Clearly, not any spilled blood is acceptable as a sacrifice. CREATOR of Israel set forth very meticulous rules and laws governing acceptable sacrifices brought to Him. “Jesus’” crucifixion m ay qualify as an atonement according to the Greek Testament of Mithraisum but since his blood was not offered on the altar, it is not in compliance with what The Holy Scriptures of Israel’s CREATOR requires.

There are many other factors that would render the crucifixion of ‘Jesus’ an unacceptable sacrifice according to scriptural guidelines. According to the Biblical rules in Leviticus, all sacrifices had to be offered by a Levite Priest, a descendant of Aaron. According to the “gospel” accounts, ‘Jesus’ was killed by pagan, gentile Ro man soldiers.

That would be damaging to the Christian faith only if God was bound by human thinking which of course He is not. God does things His way not yours. He chose to suffer and die for your sins if anyone else in this world died for you to save your finite life here on earth you would regard them as a hero, but God himself died for you so to save your eternal life.