Is "sacrifice" Christianity simply a carry over from an old Roman preference?

Question

It appears that the Romans got along with those who promoted the idea of sacrifice for sins when Jesus was around... but didn't get along with those who were promoting a complete "transformation" of the person. (reference: Sermon on the Mount)

Three hundred years passed and Constantine picked up on the idea of "sacrifice for sins" but managed to stamp out all the competing factions of Christianity that promoted a real personal transformation of the person.

I guess it's easier to control people who don't change and don't go through a dramatic transformation.

So is this another example of the more things change, the more they remain the same??? .... since Jesus never promoted the idea of sacrifice for sins... not in the Sermon on the Mount and not after the crucifixion either.

But the Romans sure picked up it, and it's been with us ever since!

So is this "sacrifice" Christianity simply a carry over from an old Roman preference?

Also reference: http://gospelenigma.com

Answer 1

that blood sacrifice sacrifice idea is carried over from Jewish traditions. Yet this idea is somehow so common in Christianity, even though it is not of Jesus' teachings. It may have been Paul who carried this false teaching over. Blood is physical, perishing. His kingdom is eternal, spiritual. I would not confuse the two! One is in reconnecting you to your true spiritual being-ness, and the other is a temporary physical illusion. I would be concerned what is being "sacrificed" if one who is taken against his will, be it an unborn baby, an Iraqi civilian, or Jesus Christ, stands in truth and of no harm, yet one who kills is not ... that is a situation where one sacrifices their ETERNAL soul , and the other (against their will) their TEMPORARY body. And the troubling part about it is, the society has sacrificed the killers to do it.

Answer 2

No, it is a carry over from the OT.

As John said when Jesus approached him to be baptized, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."

Like wise, the reason many early Christians didn't eat meat was because much of it was sacrificed to Roman God's. Therefore, Paul said if you know it to be sacrificed, you can refrain on behalf of your weaker brother.

Since you want to leave everything that was going on in the Temple out of your equation, then you will not see how Jesus was the fulfillment of the need to sacrifice by the work done on the cross.

Oh yeah, and if you tried reading any written material like the Bible was read, you could have it contradict itself. The only way your link can make sense is to violate every literary law of interpretation....but the geniuses who wrote the article claiming to have found something others have missed for thousands of years will overlook this all important fact.

Answer 3

Wow is your grasp of history ever tenuous! You certainly put an interesting twist on things, but it will not hold up to the least rational historical inquiry.

Go and read a little Church History, and in the Apostolic Fathers. HURRY!!!

Answer 4

i'm not too sure what kind of ''sacrifice'' you're talking about. i've been through a complete transformation (renatus in Christus, as the romans would say), and anyone who knows you will say the same.

Answer 5

Sacrifice self!