Well I also showed you a place to look. Are you saying that what I showed you, relative to the question that was asked at the start of this thread which was "What happened to the animal sacrifices" is not accurate and that the Old Testament says something different?

Also, when you write:

That's your opinion.

Mason

Mason, no disrespect intended to you sir ever. But what I am trying to explain is that all sacrifices were done for a specific reason. It was required of the old testament law, for atonement for the sins of the people. According to the book of Hebrews not what others say but the actual bible itself, says the following....

Take your time when reading it, don't just skip through it fast, ponder what it's saying. Jesus Christ was the sacrificial lamb and was sent to lost sheep of the house of Israel (Jacob). He was sent to save and redeem the whole house of Israel. They denied him and killed him. Nevertheless, he was their messiah, their Christ.

Heb 10:1
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

Heb 10:4
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Heb 10:5
Wherefore when he (Jesus the Christ) cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou (God) wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me (Jesus the Christ):

Heb 10:6
In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou (God) hast had no pleasure.

Heb 10:7
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Heb 10:8
Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

Heb 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Heb 10:10
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Hi Pletho:

The Book of Hebrews is in the New Testament. And while this text may be important to you, what's written in the New Testament is not part of the Jewish religion. Furthermore, no matter what The Book of Hebrews happens to say, the answer to your question is in The Old Testament anyway. See the links I provided.

Best wishes,
Mason

I fully understand that the New Testament is not received at all by Jewish people. But the Old testament and the new testament go hand in hand. That's where the real problem lies. And that's why there is a gap and a lack of understanding.

The source of the problem is that they refused their Christ, their Messiah and hung him on a tree. And because of that refusal and denial of their Messiah, Jesus the Christ, their hearts were blinded towards the old testament and the reading of Moses and the new testament. But if they decide to turn their hearts towards God and His son, Jesus the Christ, and believe on him, then and only then will that blindness and vail will be removed from their hearts, and they will be able to actually see the truth.

I have many friends who were born into the Jewish religion. Who came to a point in their life where they were hungry for truth and actually listened and allowed someone to share the scriptures, the word of God with them. Because they wanted truth instead of all the ceremonial religious garbage they see and participate in all the time. They wanted real power in their life, they wanted the Living God in their life. They knew that something was missing and that their hearts were empty because what they keep seeing at their synagogues and doing over and over again, is meaningless, and has no power and brings no joy. They weren't seeing the awesome power and the miracles of the God of the Old testament in their synagogues. Why? Because God does not dwell in temples made with hands. The Spirit of the living God dwells in the fleshly tablets of the heart not in tablets of stone written with ink.

2Co 3:14 - 16
But their (the Children of Israel) minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

Nevertheless when it (Their Heart) shall turn to the Lord (Jesus the Christ), the vail shall be taken away.

I dont believe you know many friends who are Jewish converts and came to Christianity. Have you made up any bible verses lately?

It happens more often than you think............

Jewish people are just like any other unbeliever. They were supposed to be looking for their Messiah, their Christ, and they missed him. They did not and do not believe nor know their scriptures very well, or they would not have missed him, because he is prophesiesed about in the old testament by many many prophets. And Jesus Christ fulfilled and met all the prophesies of the Messiah and they still refused to believe........

All 4 gospels show and prove that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah, the son of God, the promised one, the promised seed talked about way back in the beginning in Genesis.

They are too wrapped up in traditions to recognize truth even until this day. Although most of those who call themselves Jewish nowadays aren't really in the lineage of the Israelite's, the house of Israel in the old testament. Want to know more about that? Read "The Thirteenth Tribe: The Kazar Empire and Its Heritage"

I already know about those views and did before last time you tried to teach me. Do you want to know about the white supremacy folks who float them or how the brits are the real Jewish people? And how those who consider themselves Jewish are imposters set out against Gods true chosen ones?

Lol, I can't help it if you don't believe what the bible teaches. As for the jewish people who claim to be be in the lineage of the house of Israel, that doesn't even really matter to God in the first place. It's their hearts that matter. Do they believe, do they believe in His son Jesus Christ, who is the way the life and the truth? No they do not. Therefore it does not matter at all. They fall into the same catagory as unbelievers, because during this day and age the only way to have eternal life is believing in Jesus Christ. If they want to wait around for their messiah who is not coming thats unfortunate. Because he already came. They missed the boat. Not only that, they also killed the prince of life. But he was raised from the dead, ressurected from the dead and now lives. And offers eternal life to anyone that comes to God through him....

Hi Pletho:

Does this include all the inconsistencies between the Old Testament and the New Testament. One obvious example: In The Book of Job, is Satan an Angel of God who only does what God allows him to, or is he the Devil doing his evil deeds. By the way, there is no devil in Judiasm.

Or how about the fact that Jews believe in the resurrection of the dead while in Christianity this is inconsistent with the idea that the soul goes to either heaven or hell once the person dies.

I thought the Romans killed Jesus. Here's another link for you:

https://outreachjudaism.org/lets-get...-audio-series/

This will give you a much better understanding of why Jews did not accept Christianity. It'll take some time to listen to it all, but you'll see that your simplistic statements about being blinded are just that, simplistic. There is a lot to it.

Let's see. There are lots of religions in this world, and many of them seek converts, which, by the way the Jews don't. And when people convert, they'll make similar statements. For instance, I have a number of friends who are Mormons, and they love their religion and will tell you about the miracles of Joseph Smith and the American Moses, Brigham Young. But I bet you think these people are also blinded.

I think this post of yours, more than any other that you have made, shows that you could care less about the initial topic of this thread, animal sacrifices and what happened to them. But you do care about converting Jews to Christianity, and that's the real purpose of your posts.

But here's some friendly advice for you. If converting Jews to Christianity is your goal, then you need to get a better understanding of why Jews don't accept Chritianity. Then you can explain to them what their errors really are. Of course, in gaining this knowledge (which you can get from the link I provided above) there's always the risk that the information given may make you question some of your beliefs.

Best wishes,
Mason

Mason, I am glad you responded with these questions. I will look over them, and do my best to explain what I know from the scriptures and if I do not know, I will let you know I do not know the answer. You pose some very good questions, but they are answerable from within the scriptures. The only problem is that the Old Test is exactly that, Old Truth, but it's still truth and relevant, but the New Test expands more on the truth and adds depth to it. And a different point of view of the same picture. Same picture, different angle, still the truth but much higher truth.

I will write later on this when I get the chance to actually sit down and go over your questions ....

God opposes the proud but gives grace to the HUMBLE, so you referring to yourself as "the lord" in your original post does not help the present situation.

Brother walkby did a great job answering the question. The animal sacrifices were a foreshadowing of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. This is a major offense to those who are perishing because they fail to see how grotesque sin is.

This is such a serious issue, that if someone were to revert to animal sacrifice as a means to be justified AFTER hearing of the glorious gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, there is no longer any forgiveness for them because they are "trampling the Son of God underfoot" and outraging the Spirit of Grace (Hebrews 10) and will receive an unimaginable penalty.

I'm surprised none of the mods were able to prevent this thread from being completely derailed with discussions of homosexuality. As for the question "since we disregard the practice of animal sacrifice, why do we continue to regard God's definition of sexual sin as outlined in Leviticus 18?" The reason is because it's through the Law that the knowledge of sin comes (Romans 3:20) and the very definition of sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4.) So we can look to the Old Testament as well as the new to find God's definition of sin.

So no, we don't disregard the entire Old Testament, but we no longer use the old sacrificial system as a means for justification because the completion has come in Jesus Christ, "for by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." Hallelujah!

Who do you think was the serpent in the Garden that deceived them?

This is not at all inconsistent with what Jesus or Paul taught. The resurrection of the dead is one of the most fundamental aspects to the Christian faith.
There will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous (Acts 24:15, Matthew 25:41-46, John 5:28-29, Daniel 12:2)

"If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."
But if it is preached that Christ HAS been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. " 1 Corinthians 15

Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin." John 19:11 That would be Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest along with the other Jewish leaders.

Genesis 3 talks about a serpent that persuaded Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. This serpent is then cursed by God to crawl, eat dust, and be disliked by Eve's descendents. This is clearly a curse on snakes, not on an Angel of Light or a demon/devil.

I can't quite figure what Mason was trying to say (I suspect he thinks orthodox Christian theology doesn't recognize a physical resurrection of the dead, but that is incorrect.). I agree with you that this is no real contradiction.

For those interested in this subject, there is an excellent free online Harvard course on Youtube titled "The Hebrew Scriptures in Judaism and Christianity," which goes through a topical comparison of how each religion understands the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible.

Nonetheless, it was the local provincial Roman leaders that killed Jesus. Caiaphas himself might have committed a greater sin than Pontius Pilate in agitating for Jesus' death, but that is sin ascribed to him and his co-conspirators personally, not to the Jews as a race. The guilt of that sin doesn't apply any more (or less) to other Jews that didn't participate than it does to Italians, or the British, or Japanese people.

I'm guessing the societies where Christianity / Judaism thrived over time became more advanced and moved away from economies relying mostly on agriculture, and so having access to livestock became more rare and so did knowledge of slaughter. These in turn led to a shift in typical religious practice and theology followed suit. I'm fairly certain we also see far less animal sacrifice in Judaism, so we can't just point to new testament justifications for not following mosaic law when answering either.

I realize the OP is asking for a theological justification and not an historical one, but I think the relationship between religious practice and theology is not a one-way street. I think they influence each-other, and therefore it is relevant to point to a change in the practice influencing the theological justifications. Some would argue that it makes the theology less consistent and therefore less dependable, but claims of "originalism" being superior isn't always as strong as many think. Consider this: If someone can point to a bible and say "and here we see changes in theological practice", then they could easily make a case for such changes being in accordance with tradition.