Was Jesus Sacrificed for the Jews ?

[abucs]

I find it interesting that 40 years after Jesus’s death the Jerusalem temple where the Jewish sacrifices were offerred to God was destroyed and thus rendered any further Jewish temple sacrifices, to this day, impossible.

Also, this post seems to suggest that for those 40 years the Jews were of the opinion that their sacrifices were not being accepted by God any more.

www3.telus.net/public/kstam/en/temple/details/evidence.htm

 

[holdencaulfield]

I find it interesting that 40 years after Jesus’s death the Jerusalem temple where the Jewish sacrifices were offerred to God was destroyed and thus rendered any further Jewish temple sacrifices, to this day, impossible.

Also, this post seems to suggest that for those 40 years the Jews were of the opinion that their sacrifices were not being accepted by God any more.

www3.telus.net/public/kstam/en/temple/details/evidence.htm

It is quite ironic.

 

[ryanoneil]

I find it interesting that 40 years after Jesus’s death the Jerusalem temple where the Jewish sacrifices were offerred to God was destroyed and thus rendered any further Jewish temple sacrifices, to this day, impossible.

Also, this post seems to suggest that for those 40 years the Jews were of the opinion that their sacrifices were not being accepted by God any more.

www3.telus.net/public/kstam/en/temple/details/evidence.htm

Very interesting! I was not aware of that.

Thank you,

Ryan

 

[ralphinal]

I find it interesting that 40 years after Jesus’s death the Jerusalem temple where the Jewish sacrifices were offerred to God was destroyed and thus rendered any further Jewish temple sacrifices, to this day, impossible.

Also, this post seems to suggest that for those 40 years the Jews were of the opinion that their sacrifices were not being accepted by God any more.

www3.telus.net/public/kstam/en/temple/details/evidence.htm

Valke discussed this on another thread. I hold the idea that once Christ died, there was no more need and once Christianity began to spread, God removed the option. Valke’s perspective is that animal sacrafices were only used by God to transition the people from Egypt into the new covenant and that eventually, they would not need them anymore as the old ways died from memory. Also, the animals sacrificed had significance in Egypt. I’ll find a link or perhaps Valke could jump in…

 

[FaithofAbraham]

Valke discussed this on another thread. I hold the idea that once Christ died, there was no more need and once Christianity began to spread, God removed the option. Valke’s perspective is that animal sacrafices were only used by God to transition the people from Egypt into the new covenant and that eventually, they would not need them anymore as the old ways died from memory. Also, the animals sacrificed had significance in Egypt. I’ll find a link or perhaps Valke could jump in…

It has been said that Jews sacrificed the Lamb because it was a pagan god of the Egyptians.

 

[ryanoneil]

I couldn’t find info on goats and sheep, but the Egyptian bull god was Apis and the cow goddess was Hathor.

 

[ralphinal]

Now you guys are getting to the point of what has been proposed. According to some, when God pulled the Isrealites out of Egypt, He gave them the commands to offer sacrifice to him, as they had grown accustomed to it is Egypt. But, that sacrifice would be the very gods of egypt! Once the old memories had died out, and God felt that the people could handle a non-sacrificial form of worship, the temple was destroyed never to be rebuilt.

If you start with that idea, the concept of Jesus fits very nicely into it, thank you very much.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

Now you guys are getting to the point of what has been proposed. According to some, when God pulled the Isrealites out of Egypt, He gave them the commands to offer sacrifice to him, as they had grown accustomed to it is Egypt. But, that sacrifice would be the very gods of egypt! Once the old memories had died out, and God felt that the people could handle a non-sacrificial form of worship, the temple was destroyed never to be rebuilt.

If you start with that idea, the concept of Jesus fits very nicely into it, thank you very much.

I see the sense in not requiring animals, God said He wanted mercy not sacrifice. Still I have some question that sacrifices are completely over because of this description of the Messianic Age:

Ezekiel 45:17 And it shall be the prince’s part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.

So I think, maybe it is just symbolic of what Jesus does spiritually.

Or, maybe in that 1000 years after his return, Jesus makes all the Israelites follow Torah perfectly – Satan is bound at the time so it should be easier not to sin – then when they have, the end comes, earth and heaven pass away, then Torah is no more.

 

[ryanoneil]

I see the sense in not requiring animals, God said He wanted mercy not sacrifice. Still I have some question that sacrifices are completely over because of this description of the Messianic Age:

Ezekiel 45:17 And it shall be the prince’s part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.

So I think, maybe it is just symbolic of what Jesus does spiritually.

Or, maybe in that 1000 years after his return, Jesus makes all the Israelites follow Torah perfectly – Satan is bound at the time so it should be easier not to sin – then when they have, the end comes, earth and heaven pass away, then Torah is no more.

We Catholics believe we have been in the Messianic Age since Jesus’ coming, and His sacrifice was an eternal one.

Since the earliest days, the Church has understood the Crucifixion and Resurrection as “the Lord’s Passover” The Eucharist, in turn, is the memorial of the Lord’s Passover.

That’s why during the Mass the priest presents the consecrated Host (bread) to us and declares: “This is the Lamb of God…Happy are those who are called to His supper.” The Liturgy is yoking together two New Testament passages.

John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.

Revelation 19:9 *Then the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who have been called to the wedding feast of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These words are true; they come from God.” *

Are you familiar with the sacrament of the Eucharist? We believe Jesus fulfilled Ezekiel 45:17 for us eternally.

Luke 22:15-20 *He said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer, for, I tell you, I shall not eat it (again) until there is fulfillment in the kingdom of God.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; for I tell you (that) from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you. *

Then after His resurrection.

Luke 24:29-31 But they urged him, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening and the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them. And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight.

Do you see the parallel with Ezekiel 45:17? It is fulfilled for us at every Mass when His, once for all, sacrifice at calvary is re-presented.

1 Cor 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

How familiar are you with these ideas?

Peace,

Ryan

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

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.

I really detect a pattern here, iloveu2.

Okay, I’ll bite on the propaganda.

First, you really should post your own thoughts instead of repeatedly quoting other people and their beliefs. You are probably an intelligent person who can come up with your own arguments for or against something.

Second, let’s look at what the author is saying. They are taking this one verse in Leviticus, then taking one part of that verse (the part that flour is acceptable) and trying to destroy the hundreds of other verses explaining this requirement in the NT. Poor methodology and unacceptable scholarship.

Third, the author should really read the NT, especially the book of Hebrews which explains this very well. Don’t be swayed by the objections and propositions of those who seek to give you the truth. Find the truth on your own using the reason and Divine Spirit that the CREATOR has given you.

:coffeeread:

Carry on…

Peace.

MW

 

[Valke2]

Valke discussed this on another thread. I hold the idea that once Christ died, there was no more need and once Christianity began to spread, God removed the option. Valke’s perspective is that animal sacrafices were only used by God to transition the people from Egypt into the new covenant and that eventually, they would not need them anymore as the old ways died from memory. Also, the animals sacrificed had significance in Egypt. I’ll find a link or perhaps Valke could jump in…

The lawyer in me is cautioning myself not to say anything in this post that might be contradicted by my previous testimony.

There’s a idea in Judaism, expressed in the school of Ishmael (1st century sage), that the commandment to build the Temple/Tabernacle came only after the sin of the golden calf. God saw that the method of sacrifice/worship was ingrained in the Israelites. So He instituted a system of sacrifices which would ensure, by limiting the type, place and time of such sacrifices, that they were made to the One God.

God took our desire to worship in pagan ways and turned it into something designed to reinforce the His Oneness. The paradox of this is that we have God residing in the Temple at the same time we are acknowledging that His Glory is everywhere. But you can’t have a really good religion without paradox.

 

[Valke2]

I see the sense in not requiring animals, God said He wanted mercy not sacrifice. Still I have some question that sacrifices are completely over because of this description of the Messianic Age:

Ezekiel 45:17 And it shall be the prince’s part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.

So I think, maybe it is just symbolic of what Jesus does spiritually.

Or, maybe in that 1000 years after his return, Jesus makes all the Israelites follow Torah perfectly – Satan is bound at the time so it should be easier not to sin – then when they have, the end comes, earth and heaven pass away, then Torah is no more.

One of the things we believe, as Jews, is that in the Messianic Age, all jews will obey the commandments easily and joyfully. This is how we interpet the “circumcision of the heart” language. Some Jews would be surprised to read that Rambam (a major muckity muck of Jewish sages), believed that sacrifices would not need to be instituted when the Temple was rebuilt. (although he did spend a lot of time explaining the laws of sacrifice in case he was wrong).

 

[Valke2]

I couldn’t find info on goats and sheep, but the Egyptian bull god was Apis and the cow goddess was Hathor.

I believe that the lamb was one of the major dieties worshipped in Egypt at the time of Exodus

 

[ralphinal]

The lawyer in me is cautioning myself not to say anything in this post that might be contradicted by my previous testimony.

There’s a idea in Judaism, expressed in the school of Ishmael (1st century sage), that the commandment to build the Temple/Tabernacle came only after the sin of the golden calf. God saw that the method of sacrifice/worship was ingrained in the Israelites. So He instituted a system of sacrifices which would ensure, by limiting the type, place and time of such sacrifices, that they were made to the One God.

God took our desire to worship in pagan ways and turned it into something designed to reinforce the His Oneness. The paradox of this is that we have God residing in the Temple at the same time we are acknowledging that His Glory is everywhere. But you can’t have a really good religion without paradox.

Thanks for clearing that up. I was afraid ot misquote you, so I went ahead and did it anyway