Animal Sacrifices

[praise_yeshua]

There is much misunderstanding when comes to animal sacrifices under the Old Covenant. Traditional Christians usually teach that the offering of the blood of animals provided a "covering" to mankind. Which isn't true. There are no Scriptures that even imply such an application. We know that God has never taken pleasure in the blood of animals. Never.

So what is it about "animals sacrifices"? What was the value of animal sacrifices?

It really is simple. So simple that, that unless you truly put Christ first, you will never know why. Which is the danger of Messianic Judaism. While they "claim" to extol the value of Jesus Christ, they deny it in their theology. Christ always takes a "backseat" to their "love" for what condemns them. It is rooted in their lack of self awareness and their lack of value in Jesus Christ.

Animals were unwillingly subjected to the "plight" of man. The very things crafted by God to help man..... SUFFERING for man. Man, himself, was required to execute judgement against innocent animals for their own sins. Which is an allegory to Christ willingly subjecting Himself to the judgement of men in the Crucifiction. There was ZERO merit in the atoning value of animals. There was never any doubt that the ONLY actual merit of the shedding of blood would be found in God dying for humanity. The selfless sacrifice of animals was so design that man might use his own self awareness to gather just a little sense of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ long before it ever took place.

 

[Dizerner]

Scripture tells us the Law was full of symbolic imagery—it was a "shadow" of the good things to come.

There was no holier place in all Israel, than the Holy of Holies—and no holier place in the Holy of Holies than the Mercy Seat between the cherubim, representing the most sacred and intimate presence of God.

And upon this sacred and intimate place was spattered blood—not even human blood, but just a common animal.

Now Christ is said to have sprinkled his blood on us and for us, for our cleansing.

No, animals cannot sin, they have no spiritual dimension.

It was a type—a picture.

A shadow.

The substance is of Christ.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Scripture tells us the Law was full of symbolic imagery—it was a "shadow" of the good things to come.

There was no holier place in all Israel, than the Holy of Holies—and no holier place in the Holy of Holies than the Mercy Seat between the cherubim, representing the most sacred and intimate presence of God.

And upon this sacred and intimate place was spattered blood—not even human blood, but just a common animal.

Now Christ is said to have sprinkled his blood on us and for us, for our cleansing.

No, animals cannot sin, they have no spiritual dimension.

It was a type—a picture.

A shadow.

The substance is of Christ.

I generally agree with what you wrote. However, the "Holy of Holies" wasn't innately holy. Sacrifices were made upon earthen altars. The blood of these sacrifices was "poured" out on the ground from whence man was taken.

Which is what happened at Calvary. The blood of Christ flowed out on the ground. I personally believe it might have been the very spot of "dirt" from which the flesh of man was crafted by God.

Deu 15:19 All the firstling males that come of thy herd and of thy flock thou shalt sanctify unto the LORD thy God: thou shalt do no work with the firstling of thy bullock, nor shear the firstling of thy sheep.
Deu 15:20 Thou shalt eat it before the LORD thy God year by year in the place which the LORD shall choose, thou and thy household.
Deu 15:21 And if there be any blemish therein, as if it be lame, or blind, or have any ill blemish, thou shalt not sacrifice it unto the LORD thy God.
Deu 15:22 Thou shalt eat it within thy gates: the unclean and the clean person shall eat it alike, as the roebuck, and as the hart.
Deu 15:23 Only thou shalt not eat the blood thereof; thou shalt pour it upon the ground as water.

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to all.
OT Covenant, Leviticus 17:11 "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: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."

NT Covenant, Hebrews 13:10 "We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle." Hebrews 13:11 "For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp." Hebrews 13:12 "Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate." Hebrews 13:13 "Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach." Hebrews 13:14 "For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come." Hebrews 13:15 "By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name."

WHICH THIS WAS ALREADY FORETOLD BY GOD HIMSELF, Isaiah 57:17 "For the iniquity of his covetousness was I wroth, and smote him: I hid me, and was wroth, and he went on frowardly in the way of his heart." Isaiah 57:18 "I have seen his ways, and will heal him: I will lead him also, and restore comforts unto him and to his mourners." Isaiah 57:19 "I create the fruit of the lips; Peace, peace to him that is far off, and to him that is near, saith the LORD; and I will heal him." Isaiah 57:20 "But the wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt." Isaiah 57:21 "There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked."

PICJAG, 101G.

 

[SteveB]

There is much misunderstanding when comes to animal sacrifices under the Old Covenant. Traditional Christians usually teach that the offering of the blood of animals provided a "covering" to mankind. Which isn't true. There are no Scriptures that even imply such an application.

Really?
ever read Leviticus 17?
it's clearly stated...

Lev 17:11 WEB For the life of the flesh is in the blood. I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life.

We then read in Hebrews 9

Heb 9:22 WEB According to the law, nearly everything is cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission.

We know that God has never taken pleasure in the blood of animals. Never.

Based on what?
Isaiah talks about how God loathes their sacrifices for a very specific reason.
They weren't turning away from their sin.
They were continuing to sin, and treated the sacrifices as a get out of jail free card.
Isaiah 1.

So what is it about "animals sacrifices"? What was the value of animal sacrifices?

At the time, it was for atonement.
Once Jesus came, He was the final sacrifice for sin. Hebrews 10.

It really is simple. So simple that, that unless you truly put Christ first, you will never know why. Which is the danger of Messianic Judaism. While they "claim" to extol the value of Jesus Christ, they deny it in their theology. Christ always takes a "backseat" to their "love" for what condemns them. It is rooted in their lack of self awareness and their lack of value in Jesus Christ.

Animals were unwillingly subjected to the "plight" of man. The very things crafted by God to help man..... SUFFERING for man. Man, himself, was required to execute judgement against innocent animals for their own sins. Which is an allegory to Christ willingly subjecting Himself to the judgement of men in the Crucifiction. There was ZERO merit in the atoning value of animals. There was never any doubt that the ONLY actual merit of the shedding of blood would be found in God dying for humanity. The selfless sacrifice of animals was so design that man might use his own self awareness to gather just a little sense of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ long before it ever took place.

There will come a day, according to Ezekiel 45-46, that sacrifices will begin again, and be a requirement for genuine worship.

So.... watch carefully on this issue.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Traditional Christians usually teach that the offering of the blood of animals provided a "covering" to mankind. Which isn't true.

Then handle Hebrews 9. The Traditional Christian view is accurate. It was a TYPE of a sacrifice to come, and temporarily covered the sins of Israel.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Then handle Hebrews 9. The Traditional Christian view is accurate. It was a TYPE of a sacrifice to come, and temporarily covered the sins of Israel.

I'm not going to guess what verse you're referencing.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Really?
ever read Leviticus 17?
it's clearly stated...

Lev 17:11 WEB For the life of the flesh is in the blood. I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life.

Like I haven't read Lev 17:11. Do you really think I haven't read Leviticus 17:11?

We then read in Hebrews 9

Heb 9:22 WEB According to the law, nearly everything is cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission.

If there were remission then it wouldn't have been necessary for Christ to die. You don't understand what you read.

Based on what?
Isaiah talks about how God loathes their sacrifices for a very specific reason.
They weren't turning away from their sin.
They were continuing to sin, and treated the sacrifices as a get out of jail free card.
Isaiah 1. .

I guess I know more of the Scriptures than you do. So much for falsely mocking me for not knowing Lev 17:11.....

Psa 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
Psa 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

At the time, it was for atonement.
Once Jesus came, He was the final sacrifice for sin. Hebrews 10. .

If those sacrifices would have atoned for sin, then Christ wouldn't have had to die.

Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

There will come a day, according to Ezekiel 45-46, that sacrifices will begin again, and be a requirement for genuine worship.

So.... watch carefully on this issue.

Jesus said clearly.....

John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

Really?

Do you know Hebrews 10. When was the last time you read it? So watch carefully on this issue. Pay attention to verse 26.

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

There remains no more sacrifice for sin.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I'm not going to guess what verse you're referencing.

Pretty much the whole chapter. But if you don't care, then don't bother.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Pretty much the whole chapter. But if you don't care, then don't bother.

I dealt with much of it above. I do care, I don't see why you insist on being so vague in response.

 

[SteveB]

Like I haven't read Lev 17:11. Do you really think I haven't read Leviticus 17:11?

I have no idea.
I asked you a question, so is this your answer?

If there were remission then it wouldn't have been necessary for Christ to die. You don't understand what you read.

really? That sounds convenient for you.
Do you think that words ordered in a specific manner prevent people from understanding, when YHVH's goal is that his people understand?

I guess I know more of the Scriptures than you do.

Wow. In that case, I'd say that you have a completely different goal than i did.

So much for falsely mocking me for not knowing Lev 17:11.....

well, first you have to assume I'm mocking you.
So much for your love.

Psa 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
Psa 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

What do you think is taking place here?
Is David recognizing that offering sacrifices isn't enough, but that repentance is required too?

If those sacrifices would have atoned for sin, then Christ wouldn't have had to die.

Not so.
God set the stage for his people to understand when Messiah came.

Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

And?

Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

And?

Jesus said clearly.....

John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

yep! He sure did! I'm grateful too. Otherwise, only people like you would be welcome, and the rest of us would be outside, isolated, separated from YHVH.

Really?

at this point, I'd say that depends entirely on what you think I'm saying.

Do you know Hebrews 10.

Yep.

When was the last time you read it?

Recently enough.

So watch carefully on this issue. Pay attention to verse 26.

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

That's right.

There remains no more sacrifice for sin.

Indeed.
Which begs the question you apparently keep ignoring.

Is YHVH a liar?

 

[praise_yeshua]

I have no idea.
I asked you a question, so is this your answer?

really? That sounds convenient for you.
Do you think that words ordered in a specific manner prevent people from understanding, when YHVH's goal is that his people understand?

Wow. In that case, I'd say that you have a completely different goal than i did.

That is right. You have no idea. So why start with such an assumption. It was a mocking question.

Yes. I know more of the Scriptures than you. That is statement of fact. You making mistakes because you do not know the Scriptures.

well, first you have to assume I'm mocking you.
So much for your love.

It was just a question...... (See how that works).

What do you think is taking place here?
Is David recognizing that offering sacrifices isn't enough, but that repentance is required too?

He didn't say anything about Repentance. There is no need to read your bias into the narrative.

BTW... just how many times are you going to repent and claim an animal sacrifice has atone for your own failures?

Not so.
God set the stage for his people to understand when Messiah came.

And?

And?

yep! He sure did! I'm grateful too. Otherwise, only people like you would be welcome, and the rest of us would be outside, isolated, separated from YHVH.

at this point, I'd say that depends entirely on what you think I'm saying.

Yep.

Recently enough.

That's right.

Indeed.
Which begs the question you apparently keep ignoring.

Is YHVH a liar?

You obviously think He is..... Not me. I believe what Hebrews 10:26 says. There is no remaining sacrifice for sin. So much for pretending that future innocent animal sacrifices will atone for your sin.

You're saying those sacrifices actually provided Atonement when only the Blood of Jesus Christ provides atonement. There is no mistake to be found in Hebrews 10

 

[SteveB]

That is right. You have no idea. So why start with such an assumption. It was a mocking question.

Ah. Ok.
Apparently you d'man, and all knowledge and wisdom dwells with you.

Yes. I know more of the Scriptures than you. That is statement of fact. You making mistakes because you do not know the Scriptures.

The last guy who claimed such superior knowledge wound up destroying himself.

It was just a question...... (See how that works).

Apparently, nobody is allowed to ask you questions.

He didn't say anything about Repentance. There is no need to read your bias into the narrative.

BTW... just how many times are you going to repent and claim an animal sacrifice has atone for your own failures?






You obviously think He is..... Not me. I believe what Hebrews 10:26 says. There is no remaining sacrifice for sin. So much for pretending that future innocent animal sacrifices will atone for your sin.

You're saying those sacrifices actually provided Atonement when only the Blood of Jesus Christ provides atonement. There is no mistake to be found in Hebrews 10

I never said there were mistakes.
Hebrews 9 is pretty clear.
Without the shedding of blood there is no remission.
And leading up to Jesus, that meant animal sacrifice, as was written in Leviticus 17:9.


As such, since you know everything, and I can't ask you questions without insulting your intellect, I'll stick with the description I provided, and you'll just have to live with the awareness that there are people who read the Bible daily and think differently about what is written, and follow Jesus.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Ah. Ok.
Apparently you d'man, and all knowledge and wisdom dwells with you.

Exaggeration. I said I know more of the Scriptures than you do. That doesn't equal much at all.

The last guy who claimed such superior knowledge wound up destroying himself.

You have an high opinion of yourself. What said wasn't meaningful. More of a just a little isn't much at all.

Apparently, nobody is allowed to ask you questions.

Nonsense. I get asked questions all the time. I answer most of them. Ask me if I read something is ridiculous. I'll give it back to you and see if you see if differently.

I never said there were mistakes.
Hebrews 9 is pretty clear.
Without the shedding of blood there is no remission.
And leading up to Jesus, that meant animal sacrifice, as was written in Leviticus 17:9.

Hebrew 10:26 constrains what you believe Lev 17 means.

As such, since you know everything, and I can't ask you questions without insulting your intellect, I'll stick with the description I provided, and you'll just have to live with the awareness that there are people who read the Bible daily and think differently about what is written, and follow Jesus.

Don't play wounded. Ask away.

Have you read John 3:16?

 

[SteveB]

Exaggeration. I said I know more of the Scriptures than you do. That doesn't equal much at all.

Yet your knowledge is so fragile that you are offended by the asking of a single question and then think it's not just important, but an absolute necessity to not just boast about it, but berate the asking.
So, obviously you are d'man and all wisdom and knowledge dwells with you.

You have an high opinion of yourself.

My opinion of myself is based on what is written in the Bible.
should I take your opinion of me instead?
based entirely on your inability to allow questions, while boasting about the superiority of your knowledge of the bible, I'm thinking that you're the one who is feeling particularly superior about yourself.

What said wasn't meaningful. More of a just a little isn't much at all.

Huh?

Nonsense. I get asked questions all the time. I answer most of them.

this is starting to sound like several thousand conversations I've had with a particular atheist on the other forum.

Ask me if I read something is ridiculous. I'll give it back to you and see if you see if differently.

So far you've failed to do so with my initial post. You just told me that my question mocked you and then you told me that your knowledge of the bible is superior to mine, and then your posts have devolved into a number of-.... I'm better than you, so you'd better take what I say as definitive truth!... posts.
Without actually achieving or doing this.

Hebrew 10:26 constrains what you believe Lev 17 means.

Where did i say that what is written in the Law supercedes the gospel?

Don't play wounded. Ask away.

i already did. You said i mocked you.
that sounds like you're the one playing wounded.

Have you read John 3:16?

Yep. Quite frequently actually.
I think that it's an incredibly important element to the rest of the quote.

Joh 3:14-21 WEB 14 As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only born Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God didn’t send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through him. 18 He who believes in him is not judged. He who doesn’t believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only born Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the light and doesn’t come to the light, lest his works would be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God.”

So.... I'm curious...
Do you actually want to engage in such discussions or do you want to dwell inside your assumptions and live in your mind, with your superiority complex?

Because I did not come here to engage in arguing.

I see my part in body of Christ as....
As Jesus said to Peter,

Luk 22:32 WEB but I prayed for you, that your faith wouldn’t fail. You, when once you have turned again, establish your brothers.”

So, if you need to bolster yourself to feel successful, at the expense of others, say so and I'll ignore everything you post.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I dealt with much of it above. I do care, I don't see why you insist on being so vague in response.

The chapter reveals that "the blood of livestock" WAS INCAPABLE of CLEANSING SIN, but was an Antitype of Jesus Blood which Could. The O.T Sacrifice "Covered" Israels sin, but didn't cleanse it.

Simple as that.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yet your knowledge is so fragile that you are offended by the asking of a single question and then think it's not just important, but an absolute necessity to not just boast about it, but berate the asking.
So, obviously you are d'man and all wisdom and knowledge dwells with you.

A question you're avoiding. I wonder why?

Have you read John 3:16?

I insist that you answer this. Tell me how you feel about someone asking you this?

 

[praise_yeshua]

The chapter reveals that "the blood of livestock" WAS INCAPABLE of CLEANSING SIN, but was an Antitype of Jesus Blood which Could. The O.T Sacrifice "Covered" Israels sin, but didn't cleanse it.

Simple as that.

What verse details the "antitype" and that it "covered" something?

You do realize that "covering something" doesn't stop it from stinking.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

What verse details the "antitype" and that it "covered" something?

You do realize that "covering something" doesn't stop it from stinking.

Heb 9 handles all that - i.e. why Jesus' offering was BETTER THAN what the O.T. priests did with their bloody ceremonies.

And NO, "covering something doesn't stop it from stinking", but it DID make it possible for God to continue dealing with His "Chosen people" looking forward to JESUS' SIN OFFERING (Isa 53:10) which ELIMINATED SIN in those who put their FAITH in it, completely.

 

[SteveB]

A question you're avoiding. I wonder why?

I'm not avoiding it.
You accused me of mocking you.
I then asked if that was your answer.

Have you read John 3:16?

You didn't read what I stated?
This is not going well.

I insist that you answer this. Tell me how you feel about someone asking you this?

I'm still here.