-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why don't Christians give burnt offerings?
- Thread starter Treks
- Start date
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
God directed the Israelites to offer sacrifices as sin offering in order to make atonement for their errors. Once a year the High priest would also offer a sacrifice on the 'day of atonement' year after year continually because the people were continually sinning. (Ex 29:36; Le 4:20)
However, when Christ came, he offered his own life as a sacrifice to atone for the sins of all people....this was so that mankind might live forever without the penalty of death hanging over their head. Paul explains why those animal sacrifices have ceased:
11 However, when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come to pass, through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, 12 he entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance [for us]. 13 For if the blood of goats and of bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who have been defiled sanctifies to the extent of cleanness of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of the Christ, who through an everlasting spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works that we may render sacred service to [the] living God?
Christ offered his own blood to atone for our sins.... so we dont need animal blood anymore. The animal blood could not bring an end to sin, but Jesus blood can because those who put faith in his blood, can request God for forgiveness, and God will place the value of Christs 'perfect human life' upon us. Therefore, Everlasting life will be a possibility with Christs blood.
And this is why we no longer need to offer animal blood to atone for our sins...we are atoning for sins by the blood of Christ, which is perfect.
Dear Treks 
Great to see you and thank you for the question.
The reason why Christians do not give burnt offerings to God is multifaceted.
When Christianity was made the official state religion of the Roman Empire in the late 300s AD, all animal sacrifices were outlawed. For a period the Christians had co-existed alongside pagan animal sacrificial rituals, however they had a strong dislike for the practice and when they became the representative majority in the population they removed it altogether from society.
For one, Christians believed that God had never truly willed for their to be animal sacrifices. It had been a concession to human weakness and the relative primitiveness of the human race at the time of Moses. Rather animal sacrifice was more of a stage in the process of spiritual progression upon which he was leading the children of Israel. In the Torah human sacrifice had been strongly outlawed. Animal sacrifice was permitted, however in later sections of the prophetic writings of the Tanakh we begin to see the ancient Jews take a much more critical view towards the practice:
The most severe criticism in the Jewish Tanakh comes from Deutero-Isaiah in about the fifth century BCE:
Animal sacrifice is here equated with the murder of people and the spiteful breaking of an innocent dog's neck for no purpose.
Finally we have Jeremiah:
Jeremiah preached that God had not truly commanded nor wanted animal sacrifices. He desired that the Jews obey his teachings and animal sacrifice was therefore permitted to guide these ancient people but not to become attached to the actual empty ritual.
In the New Testament this tradition of criticizing animal sacrifice reached a crescendo.
In the Book of Hebrews in the NT we find this:
Hebrews 10
In extra-canonical writings, Jesus is recorded as having directly confronted the Temple authorities in Jerusalem and condemned their ritualized killing of animals.
Therefore we read in the Gospel of the Ebionites recorded by Epiphanius, a church father:
Andrew Phillip Smith, a scholar, notes in this respect:
In Catholicism, the Eucharist is described as a "sacrifice", the "sacrifice of the mass". Christian offered up the bread and wine rather than animals. This is our sacrifice.
What God truly wants is for you to offer yourself up as a burnt offering to God. Renounce your self-will, offer up your self to Him and sacrifice yourself upon the altar of his love - symbolized by the self-sacrificing love of Jesus.
Hence why St. Augustine said:
We must identify ourselves with the paschal sacrifice of the bread and wine on the altar. We are the body of Christ, we are Christ.
There is a beautifully simple aphorism in the Guru Granth Sahib ji which expresses this same truth:
As Nanak excellent puts it, we must be our own sacrifice to God.
So in respect of the above, I personally do not think that we shall see animal burnt offerings any time soon within Christianity or Judaism (which abandoned the practice after the destruction by the Romans of the Jewish Temple in AD 70).
Great to see you and thank you for the question.
The reason why Christians do not give burnt offerings to God is multifaceted.
When Christianity was made the official state religion of the Roman Empire in the late 300s AD, all animal sacrifices were outlawed. For a period the Christians had co-existed alongside pagan animal sacrificial rituals, however they had a strong dislike for the practice and when they became the representative majority in the population they removed it altogether from society.
For one, Christians believed that God had never truly willed for their to be animal sacrifices. It had been a concession to human weakness and the relative primitiveness of the human race at the time of Moses. Rather animal sacrifice was more of a stage in the process of spiritual progression upon which he was leading the children of Israel. In the Torah human sacrifice had been strongly outlawed. Animal sacrifice was permitted, however in later sections of the prophetic writings of the Tanakh we begin to see the ancient Jews take a much more critical view towards the practice:
Hosea 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
Isaiah 1:11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
Though they offer choice sacrifices, though they eat flesh, the Lord does not accept them. Now he will remember their iniquity, and punish their sins ... Hosea 8:13
I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them; and the offerings of well-being of your fatted animals I will not look upon. Take away from me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the melody of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. Amos 5:21-24
With what shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:6-8
In these ancient texts written between the ninth-fifth centuries BCE we begin to see a real antipathy for the entire premise of sacrificing an animal as an act of penance for one's sins. It became in this period an empty ritual slaughter of an animal, a going through the motions, without any true humility of heart, or commitment to upholding justice and mercy. The ancient Jews became attached to the act and lost the meaning behind the symbolic act.
The most severe criticism in the Jewish Tanakh comes from Deutero-Isaiah in about the fifth century BCE:
Animal sacrifice is here equated with the murder of people and the spiteful breaking of an innocent dog's neck for no purpose.
Finally we have Jeremiah:
Jeremiah preached that God had not truly commanded nor wanted animal sacrifices. He desired that the Jews obey his teachings and animal sacrifice was therefore permitted to guide these ancient people but not to become attached to the actual empty ritual.
In the New Testament this tradition of criticizing animal sacrifice reached a crescendo.
In the Book of Hebrews in the NT we find this:
Hebrews 10
- "is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins... which can never take away sins" (vs 4, 12)
- "Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin Thou didst not will" (vs 5)
- "In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure... Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law" (vs 6 & 8 )
- He taketh away the first (animal sacrifice), that he may establish the second (the sacrifice of Jesus). (vs 9)
- "through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (for ever)" (vs 10)
- "after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever" (vs 12)
In extra-canonical writings, Jesus is recorded as having directly confronted the Temple authorities in Jerusalem and condemned their ritualized killing of animals.
Therefore we read in the Gospel of the Ebionites recorded by Epiphanius, a church father:
Andrew Phillip Smith, a scholar, notes in this respect:
In Catholicism, the Eucharist is described as a "sacrifice", the "sacrifice of the mass". Christian offered up the bread and wine rather than animals. This is our sacrifice.
What God truly wants is for you to offer yourself up as a burnt offering to God. Renounce your self-will, offer up your self to Him and sacrifice yourself upon the altar of his love - symbolized by the self-sacrificing love of Jesus.
Hence why St. Augustine said:
We must identify ourselves with the paschal sacrifice of the bread and wine on the altar. We are the body of Christ, we are Christ.
There is a beautifully simple aphorism in the Guru Granth Sahib ji which expresses this same truth:
As Nanak excellent puts it, we must be our own sacrifice to God.
So in respect of the above, I personally do not think that we shall see animal burnt offerings any time soon within Christianity or Judaism (which abandoned the practice after the destruction by the Romans of the Jewish Temple in AD 70).
Last edited:
Psalm 51:
For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it;
You do not delight in burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,
A broken and a contrite heart—
These, O God, You will not despise.
The animal sacrifices of the Old Testament were merely meant to be a foreshadowing of Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross. It is Christ's Sacrifice that reconciles us with God, not animal sacrifices.
For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it;
You do not delight in burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,
A broken and a contrite heart—
These, O God, You will not despise.
The animal sacrifices of the Old Testament were merely meant to be a foreshadowing of Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross. It is Christ's Sacrifice that reconciles us with God, not animal sacrifices.
Shermana
Heretic
Psalm 51 continued:
7My sacrifice, O God, isb a broken spirit;a broken and contrite heart
you, God, will not despise.
18May it please you to prosper Zion,
to build up the walls of Jerusalem.
19Then you will delight in the sacrifices of the righteous,
in burnt offerings offered whole;
then bulls will be offered on your altar.
It seems its a trend among many to use OT passages out of context to falsely indicate that sacrifices were not desired in the first place, or effective, no contradictions in that concept with the text of course. The context is that sacrifices are not pleasing when not done with the right heart.
So yeah, sacrifices will commence again at the end days, says Zechariah.
I'm pretty sure it is because we see Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice. Besides, burnt sacrifices were just a feast- it said to burn off the fatty portions of the meat- they then ate it and shared it with the religious leaders (priests).
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
the sacrifices were to atone for the sins of man UNTIL the messiah arrived. From then one, atonement would be possible through him because he would 'finish off sin"
There are seventy weeks that have been determined upon your people and upon your holy city, in order to terminate the transgression, and to finish off sin, and to make atonement for error, and to bring in righteousness for times indefinite, and to imprint a seal upon vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies....And he must keep the covenant in force for the many for one week; and at the half of the week he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease....Da 9:24-27.
....and when sin is no more, then nor is the need for making atonement.
So blood sacrifices have to come to an end...otherwise you are saying that mankind will forever more be living with sin and death. The entire purpose of the messiah is to remove sin and death from our pitiful condition. If sin is removed, why would we still need to offer blood sacrifices???
Instead, we offer to God our very lives as a 'living sacrifice' as Paul stated:
Present your bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God.Romans 12:1
Shermana
Heretic
Ahem....here is the ending of Verse 27 which was apparently snipped out there.
Thus begets a problem of how exactly to interpret the prophecies of Daniel. Especially so in how to interpret them in full context without snipping out any inconvenient sections.
This figure is obviously not the Roman emperor at 70-130 A.D., it's referring to the time of the Greeks taking over of the Temple.
You can't get around the fact that Zechariah says there will indeed be sacrifices again, it's not being symbolic or metaphorical. I can see why antinomians would love to sweep that verse under the rug or try to redefine it though.
That's not exactly the entire purpose of the Messiah, it's a misunderstanding of what "removed sin" means, if anything the fact that sin still exists and death still exists means the Messiah hasn't come, or that the prophecies are a bit differently interpreted than what you're thinking. Sin has not been removed. Hebrews 10:26 as well states that if you continue to sin after receiving Jesus, there remains no more sacrifice for your sins.
Perhaps this thread should be in the debate sections.
So we are left with the implications that this only happens "UNtil the decree is poured out on him". Which means its only temporary.
Thus begets a problem of how exactly to interpret the prophecies of Daniel. Especially so in how to interpret them in full context without snipping out any inconvenient sections.
This figure is obviously not the Roman emperor at 70-130 A.D., it's referring to the time of the Greeks taking over of the Temple.
You can't get around the fact that Zechariah says there will indeed be sacrifices again, it's not being symbolic or metaphorical. I can see why antinomians would love to sweep that verse under the rug or try to redefine it though.
That's not exactly the entire purpose of the Messiah, it's a misunderstanding of what "removed sin" means, if anything the fact that sin still exists and death still exists means the Messiah hasn't come, or that the prophecies are a bit differently interpreted than what you're thinking. Sin has not been removed. Hebrews 10:26 as well states that if you continue to sin after receiving Jesus, there remains no more sacrifice for your sins.
Perhaps this thread should be in the debate sections.
Last edited:
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Zechariah gave his message in 513BCE. It was shortly after the Jews had been freed from Babylon and had returned to their homeland. They were supposed to be rebuilding the Temple which had been destroyed by the Babylonians. But they had been back in the land for 17 years and yet the temple was still in ruins. So God sent Zechariah to stir up the people to renew the construction and to stay with it until completed.—Ezra 4:23, 24; 5:1, 2.
At that time they had no king of Isreal, and they were being dominated by another nation...so they had lost their zeal. Zechariah encouraged them by saying that the sacrifices WILL be restored. This was said to instill courage and enthusiasm in the people because they were not rebuilding the temple. When they finally did complete the building work, the priesthood was restored along with the sacrifices. So that prophecy was fulfilled back then, it was just as Zechariah said....'the sacrifices will be restored' and they were. Finished. There is not going to be another literal fulfillment of this prophecy.
But Daniels prophecy is speaking about the complete destruction of the temple and its priesthood at a future time, after it had been restored the first time. Jesus actually used this prophecy of Daniel to inform his followers of what was coming. And it was due to the Romans in 70CE that this prophecy came to fulfillment.
Matthew 24:15 “Therefore, when YOU catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place, (let the reader use discernment,) 16 then let those in Ju·de′a begin fleeing to the mountains. ...21 for then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again."
This prophecy was fulfilled in 70CE in the final destruction of Jerusalem...its temple was destroyed, the priesthood was removed...God had decided to end it because the Messiah had done what he needed to do and therefore the temple and its priesthood and its sacrifices were no longer needed.
Daniel 9:27 “And he must keep [the] covenant in force for the many for one week; and at the half of the week he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease. “And upon the wing of disgusting things there will be the one causing desolation; and until an extermination, the very thing decided upon will go pouring out also upon the one lying desolate.”
And even today, what stands at the site of Jerusalems temple? An islamic Mosque. The temple is never NEVER going to be restored there...its gone for good along with the priesthood and the sacrificial system.
Last edited:
Shermana
Heretic
I retract that it's not referring to the Roman emperors, it is and takes place after the death of the Anointed one. However, it says it will be temporary. Zechariah 14 is indeed referring to the end times, there has been no time in history that the gentiles have had to obey Succoth by going up to Jerusalem. Zechariah 12-13 is likely talking about the Roman era, and 14 about the future era.
So we have proof in Daniel as well that the end to the temple sacrifices is temporary, even if it lasts for a long while.
The problem here is that little period after offering. Take away the period and you get a completely different sentence.
So we have proof in Daniel as well that the end to the temple sacrifices is temporary, even if it lasts for a long while.
Wanna bet?
The problem here is that little period after offering. Take away the period and you get a completely different sentence.
Last edited:
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Shermana, the sacrifices have already begun, and the gentiles ARE going up to Jerusalem
The expression young bulls of our lips denotes spiritual sacrifices they offer to God Hebrews 13:15 states: Through [Jesus Christ] let us always offer to God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of lips which make public declaration to his name.
The heavenly kingdom which Jesus heads, is the Jerusalem 'above'
Galatians 4:26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
The Jerusalem above is spoken of as a woman who gives birth to a son in Revelation:
Revelation 12:1 And a great sign was seen in heaven, a woman arrayed with the sun, and the moon was beneath her feet, and on her head was a crown of twelve stars, ...
5 And she gave birth to a son, a male, who is to shepherd all the nations with an iron rod. And her child was caught away to God and to his throne
The woman is the heavenly jerusalem, or heavenly kingdom of God ( earthly jerusalem represented the heavenly kingdom of God) and the 'son' is Jesus Christ who has been given the authority of the Throne of that kingdom.
So Gentiles ARE worshiping at Jerusalem... it has already happened.
Me Myself
Back to my username
Whith that amount of mental gymnastics, you coud take the Goldy locks story and make it into a clear sign of Jesus glorious coming.
Treks
Well-Known Member
Please pardon my ignorance, I'm new to learning about Christianity. I've just started reading the Gospel according to Luke (New Living Translation) and it says that after Jesus's birth Mary and Joseph took him to the temple in Jerusalem (as he was the first born son) and gave the appropriate offering (two young pigeons or a pair of turtledoves).
My impression from this is that offerings were given on many occasions (including joyous occasions) and not just for sins. Can someone please clarify this for me please?
Many thanks.
And Goldilocks tried 3 different religions in the house of the thre bears and said: "This God is too angry. This one is too happy. But this God (Jesus) is juuuuuust right."
My impression from this is that offerings were given on many occasions (including joyous occasions) and not just for sins. Can someone please clarify this for me please?
Many thanks.
And Goldilocks tried 3 different religions in the house of the thre bears and said: "This God is too angry. This one is too happy. But this God (Jesus) is juuuuuust right."
Shermana
Heretic
Please pardon my ignorance, I'm new to learning about Christianity. I've just started reading the Gospel according to Luke (New Living Translation) and it says that after Jesus's birth Mary and Joseph took him to the temple in Jerusalem (as he was the first born son) and gave the appropriate offering (two young pigeons or a pair of turtledoves).
My impression from this is that offerings were given on many occasions (including joyous occasions) and not just for sins. Can someone please clarify this for me please?
Many thanks.
And Goldilocks tried 3 different religions in the house of the thre bears and said: "This God is too angry. This one is too happy. But this God (Jesus) is juuuuuust right."
Indeed that is true, offerings are given for more than just sins, such as for successful child birth, thank offerings, votive offerings, etc.
So therefore, the idea that all sacrifices cease because of Jesus who is the human guilt offering is further proof of how hole-filled this concept is.
Even Jesus gives advice regarding offerings on the altar, he says to make up with one's brother first before offering any. What a waste of breath is this advice was to never apply again a few days later.
Treks
Well-Known Member
But, for Jews (and maybe Christians, the jury seems to be out on this), if the temple in Jerusalem was rebuilt tomorrow they'd have to fly there and make offerings a LOT, right? I guess it would be replaced with a system of paying online for someone to do it in Jerusalem for you. But given the massive population of the earth we'd be burning millions of innocent little animals every day.
For Christians, Christ is our Sacrifice, and His Sacrifice is sufficient for all time--past, present and future. We Christians would not be needing to make animal sacrifices, since Jesus already accomplished that for us.But, for Jews (and maybe Christians, the jury seems to be out on this), if the temple in Jerusalem was rebuilt tomorrow they'd have to fly there and make offerings a LOT, right? I guess it would be replaced with a system of paying online for someone to do it in Jerusalem for you. But given the massive population of the earth we'd be burning millions of innocent little animals every day.
This also applies to Christians, in the Sacrifice of the Divine Liturgy/Mass, AKA the Eucharist.
Shermana
Heretic
Where does the text indicate that the Eucharist/breaking of bread is a form of thank offering/sacrifice?