Abraham Saw An Angel, And Stopped.

I agree with you Major. And we were taught that it was to be the first fruits without blemish that we were to sacrifice..also a harbinger for the coming Messiah. That is what got Cain into strife, he short changed the Lord.
 
I agree that the 'power is in the blood'-but whose blood? The blood of the animals-or the blood of humans? Is there a significant difference as humans received the 'spirit' not just the 'breath of life'?

My argument would be that no blood was sufficient until the 'blood of Christ' flowed. Everything else was a temporary symbol of things to come. God stressed the importance of the blood so when Christ died-there would be a forcible acknowledgement of the Jews that the blood of the Son of Man was the ultimate price-no animal sacrifice would be sufficient.

As a God that foresees all things-I am speculating that was His true intent on 'blood sacrifice' from the beginning. The 'blood sacrifice aspect of religion is no longer required (of the one true religion anyway) because the one True Sacrifice was completed at Calvary.

In my opinion....
 
I agree that the 'power is in the blood'-but whose blood? The blood of the animals-or the blood of humans? Is there a significant difference as humans received the 'spirit' not just the 'breath of life'?

My argument would be that no blood was sufficient until the 'blood of Christ' flowed. Everything else was a temporary symbol of things to come. God stressed the importance of the blood so when Christ died-there would be a forcible acknowledgement of the Jews that the blood of the Son of Man was the ultimate price-no animal sacrifice would be sufficient.

As a God that foresees all things-I am speculating that was His true intent on 'blood sacrifice' from the beginning. The 'blood sacrifice aspect of religion is no longer required (of the one true religion anyway) because the one True Sacrifice was completed at Calvary.

In my opinion....
So Dirty, are you saying that for those who sacrificed using the blood of an animal; let's say 1000 years before Christ, were not really forgiven until the Atoning Blood of Christ was "Back Dated" to cover their sin?
 
So Dirty, are you saying that for those who sacrificed using the blood of an animal; let's say 1000 years before Christ, were not really forgiven until the Atoning Blood of Christ was "Back Dated" to cover their sin?

And before you answer that question and Rusty agrees with you, think long and hard about it my brothers.
 
C'mon guys.....I'm not devious, not even a deviant....I don't think so anyway:sneaky: That was a simple question specifically addressed to Dirty, free of hidden agenda.
 
C'mon guys.....I'm not devious, not even a deviant....I don't think so anyway:sneaky: That was a simple question specifically addressed to Dirty, free of hidden agenda.

No, No my brother! I was not implying that at all and I am sorry it came over that way to you. Please forgive me.

I was speaking entirely to DRS and Rusty in order for them to really consider and pray about what they are saying about blood sacrifices of animals and I had no intention whatsoever to insinuate anything to your question at all.

I just do not understand the thoughts they are posting about something that is so basic in the Old Covt. economy going all the way back to the Garden of Eden.
 
No problems Major...you do not owe me an apology at all. I understood your post, I had in the back of my mind the...well better left unsaid. Just rest easy in the assurance that you did not in any way post anything out of place, and that I was not referring directly to your post.:)
 
I didn't say that sacrifices were irrelevant did I? Not at all-God has a a purpose for everything. When God cleanses sin-He cleanses sin. If I were to make pre-Christ sacrifices "irrelevant"; well wouldn't that make the sacrifice of Christ irrelevant? GOD FORBID!

My point is this-God's purposes in anything is so far beyond us-even looking back through history we don't have the full picture and won't; no matter how much we debate prophesy and scripture. We will however get our all the answers we need in 'That Day'.

The 'blood sacrifices' were an absolute necessity in God's purpose-no doubt. But to say that the sacrifice itself had something to do with forgiveness of sin would be bordering on folly in my opinion. Did the Lord Himself not say He was tired and disgusted with sacrifices? Why? Because it wasn't about the sacrifice-it was about the "heart condition" of the individual and the nation of Israel when that sacrifice was offered.

Yes the original method of atoning of sin was to have a blood sacrifice in obedience to the will of the Lord. And yet with all things human-was fouled up by the uncommitted heart of the people to God. Is not the heart the TRUE center of God's glory?

Matthew 15:8, Mark 7:6

Mark 12:
28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.
 
I think we all agree that the animal sacrifices were useless without the Cross. After all, many ancient religions far outdid our spiritual ancestors in the quantities of bloody sacrifice, including human blood. They were effectual for the ancients who practiced them in faith and obedience because they were types and shadows of the substance of the Cross of Christ. In other words, it was their relationship to the Cross that made them effectual.
 
I didn't say that sacrifices were irrelevant did I? Not at all-God has a a purpose for everything. When God cleanses sin-He cleanses sin. If I were to make pre-Christ sacrifices "irrelevant"; well wouldn't that make the sacrifice of Christ irrelevant? GOD FORBID!

My point is this-God's purposes in anything is so far beyond us-even looking back through history we don't have the full picture and won't; no matter how much we debate prophesy and scripture. We will however get our all the answers we need in 'That Day'.

The 'blood sacrifices' were an absolute necessity in God's purpose-no doubt. But to say that the sacrifice itself had something to do with forgiveness of sin would be bordering on folly in my opinion. Did the Lord Himself not say He was tired and disgusted with sacrifices? Why? Because it wasn't about the sacrifice-it was about the "heart condition" of the individual and the nation of Israel when that sacrifice was offered.

Yes the original method of atoning of sin was to have a blood sacrifice in obedience to the will of the Lord. And yet with all things human-was fouled up by the uncommitted heart of the people to God. Is not the heart the TRUE center of God's glory?

Matthew 15:8, Mark 7:6

Mark 12:
28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.
Not sure who you were replying to Dirty. Doesn't seem to address my question, but oh well.
 
So Dirty, are you saying that for those who sacrificed using the blood of an animal; let's say 1000 years before Christ, were not really forgiven until the Atoning Blood of Christ was "Back Dated" to cover their sin?

Not sure who you were replying to Dirty. Doesn't seem to address my question, but oh well.

My apologies Calvin-but to answer directly: No; I am not saying they were 'not really forgiven'. This was the point I was trying to make about 'relevant' above. Perhaps it was a bit confusing. Unlike humans-when God forgives-through whatever means He deems fit-He forgives permanently.

The point I was trying to make is 'blood sacrifices' paved the way of understanding for the ultimate True Sacrifice in Christ. Not that they were unimportant in their time-but in our time 'blood sacrifices' are no longer (eh-hem) 'relevant' as we have 1 sacrifice in Christ that covers all sins. The age of 'blood sacrifices' ended at Calvary. Does that make more sense?
 
I didn't say that sacrifices were irrelevant did I? Not at all-God has a a purpose for everything. When God cleanses sin-He cleanses sin. If I were to make pre-Christ sacrifices "irrelevant"; well wouldn't that make the sacrifice of Christ irrelevant? GOD FORBID!

My point is this-God's purposes in anything is so far beyond us-even looking back through history we don't have the full picture and won't; no matter how much we debate prophesy and scripture. We will however get our all the answers we need in 'That Day'.

The 'blood sacrifices' were an absolute necessity in God's purpose-no doubt. But to say that the sacrifice itself had something to do with forgiveness of sin would be bordering on folly in my opinion. Did the Lord Himself not say He was tired and disgusted with sacrifices? Why? Because it wasn't about the sacrifice-it was about the "heart condition" of the individual and the nation of Israel when that sacrifice was offered.

Yes the original method of atoning of sin was to have a blood sacrifice in obedience to the will of the Lord. And yet with all things human-was fouled up by the uncommitted heart of the people to God. Is not the heart the TRUE center of God's glory?

Matthew 15:8, Mark 7:6

Mark 12:
28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.

I understand what you are saying DRS.......but may I also say that Matt. 12:33 as all other examples such as it.......
must be taken in context not as a doctrinal statement.

I believe we now agree that the blood of animals was a necissity for the Old Test. saints.
 
My apologies Calvin-but to answer directly: No; I am not saying they were 'not really forgiven'. This was the point I was trying to make about 'relevant' above. Perhaps it was a bit confusing. Unlike humans-when God forgives-through whatever means He deems fit-He forgives permanently.

The point I was trying to make is 'blood sacrifices' paved the way of understanding for the ultimate True Sacrifice in Christ. Not that they were unimportant in their time-but in our time 'blood sacrifices' are no longer (eh-hem) 'relevant' as we have 1 sacrifice in Christ that covers all sins. The age of 'blood sacrifices' ended at Calvary. Does that make more sense?


It does to me DRS. All of the sacrifices in the Old Test. pointed to the blood of Christ which was on the way in Messiah Jesus.
 
I was thinking on this more today and a techy-term popped in my head: Obsolete.

Not that blood sacrifice was not important in the Old Testament; it was 'Blood Sacrifice Version Alpha 1' And the new update 'Blood Sacrifice Version Omega 2' made all previous version obsolete and no longer necessary-the Final Sacrifice.

Forgive me for making a 'relevant' statement like this-I don't like doing it-makes me wonder if I am bordering on blasphemy?
 
Makes total sense to me. A perfect example of type and anti-type.

There's no magical power in animal blood to erase sins: that's a pagan concept.

The forgiveness was in the converted heart that obeyed by yielding what was most precious, whether animal or his best crops as a "losing example". They typified the Sacrifice of the best of the Father, the life of His Son for us.

There never was any "magical" power in animal sacrifices and that has not been sid here either.

In fact sins were NOT erased in the Old Test. economy. There were "covered" by the blood of a scrifice poured onto the Mercy Seat atop the Ark of the Coevant.

THat is why the blood was important. It replaced the bllod of the sinner just as did Christ when He took our place on the cross.
 
Partly correct, Major. The sins of the OT were covered by the acts of the sanctuary service, the shedding of animal blood was symbolic, not effective of anything of itself, EXCEPT the sinners obedience. It was an earnest of what Christ would do for all sinners, die for their sins, take their sins upon Himself. Therefore OT sinners that actually when beyond the ceremony and repented and obtained a "new heart", just like sinners to day must, their sins were sent forward and canceled, just as ours must be seen in the light of the past, at what was done for us 2000 years ago.

I think it is more than "partly" correct Rusty but i will let the Word speak for itself as I believe it is clear..
Hebrews 10:1–10 (ESV)
For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; 6 in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. 7 Then I O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’ ” 8 When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), 9 then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.​
 
Back
Top