The Jesus sacrifice does not fit with the description of any other sin offering performed for the god. Is this evidence against the Christian claim that Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for sins?
2007-01-25 02:55:44 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Why did they sacrifice the clean lamb, in the Old Testament? Was it in fact for sins, or was it for idolatry?
Was the Romans custom to burn the sacrifice? It was in the Jewish tradition to give burnt offerings, but was it in the Romans tradition. Remember who cruxified Christ? It was the Romans, with the backing of the Jews.
So, your question is not one that can be answered like you would want someone to answer.
Christ Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for mankind's sins. He was clean of all sins, for He was sinless, until on the cross He bore all sins of the world upon His shoulders. Why do you think that God the Father had to turn away from looking upon His Son? It wasn't out of disappointment, but because at that very second the sins come upon Christ Jesus, God the Father had to turn away for His eyes are to pure to look upon sin.
Good question, but it is not asked for learning is it, its more like trying to dispute the sacrifice Christ did for ALL mankind. Shame on you!!!!
2007-01-25 03:16:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not only that, but a sin sacrifice consisted, not of a MALE lamb, but of a bull, a male goat, or a female lamb. Jesus, as the "lamb of God," (and male) does not fit those descriptions. He also has nothing to do with the Passover, which was a remembrance of when God brought the Israelites out of Egypt, after the death angel had killed all the Egyptian first-born. It was NOT a removal or forgiveness of sin--that was accomplished by the affore mentioned sacrifices, or by the scape goat that was not killed but released into the wilderness. Christians know nothing of Jewish laws and rituals, so it is easy for them to imagine that Jesus' sacrifice was somehow related to the sacrifices of the Old Testament.
2007-01-25 11:02:47 · answer #2 · answered by Antique Silver Buttons 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that's how God concealed His purpose from Satan. I Corinthians 2:7-8: "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."
He did bleed, although He did not bleed to death. Nor did He die from the abuse he suffered before the crucifixion nor the trauma of the cross; He gave up His spirit to the Father. But on the cross, the Father poured out our sins on Him. The animal sacrifices were but pictures of His ultimate sacrifice. There are always differences between the analogy and the real thing.
2007-01-25 11:29:35 · answer #3 · answered by Maryfrances 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope!
Jesus permitted himself to be killed in order to destroy Satan's power over mankind, as no one, not even Satan, had the authority to take the life of a sinless man, let alone the only begotten son of God..
This was the nature of his sacrifice.
And since he did it in complete obedience to the will of his Father in heaven, God was pleased enough with Jesus to offer forgiveness to mankind, in his honor.
All the other sacrifices were similar only as to form, but not to substance, and all the other sacrifices merely pointed to the one, perfect, and eternal sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
Jesus became the perfect, spotless, one time, once for all sacrifice for sin, just as God had always intended.
2007-01-26 05:15:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The sacrifice of Jesus is different in that it was a free will choice and it was a living sacrifice of Himself,He gave up His own life on the cross for us.
2007-01-25 11:03:27 · answer #5 · answered by Sentinel 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, several sacrifices were mandated as scattering the blood. Dont recall off the top of my head how many burning verses scattering of blood there were/are. In Judeo-Christianity the important element is the blood (I think) as that was what was shed after the first sin and God clothed Adam and Eve in animal skin.
2007-01-25 11:01:44 · answer #6 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jesus was not a traditional sacrifice, he was the final and only sacrifice that could let people once again be in the presence of God. By his blood are we saved.
2007-01-25 11:00:21 · answer #7 · answered by Gardener for God(dmd) 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He shed His blood.
There are prophesies all throughout the OT that explains how the Christ, the Messiah, was to be sacrificed.... and Jesus died exactly how the prophesies revealed.
He died on a cross.
He shed His blood.
He was pearced with a sword
He was beaten, mocked and scorned
None of His bones were broken (crucifixion demanded the breaking of the legs so the person couldn't hold himself up, therefore he would die more slowly -- they died of suffocation)
His garments were gambled over by the soldiers.
And there's much more.
2007-01-25 11:07:37 · answer #8 · answered by Dianne C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The blood of our Savior was the atonement.
Hebrews 9:22
(22) And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
2007-01-25 11:01:34 · answer #9 · answered by mikerow992003 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
If this had been the case, then certainly it would have been pointed out almost 2000 years ago.
Concerning His sacrificial death, there's a ton of information concerning this throughout the entire Bible. A study of the pertinent verses proves just how perfect and planned out it really was.
2007-01-25 11:03:14 · answer #10 · answered by Jed 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋