i'm having a little trouble understanding this. why do God want us to have an animal sacrifice(ancient times) for us to be pleasing to Him(forgive our sins?). Why an animal and why is there an emphasis on blood? I know we are not doing this anymore because Jesus is now our perfect sacrifice.

I am not trying to question the Will of God, but why don't God just forgive our sins if we truly have a repentant heart, and not require a sacrifice? after all, He is God right?

-- janeiro (janeiro@janeiro.com), January 23, 2005

Answers

bump!

-- janeiro (janeiro@janeiro.com), January 23, 2005.

with God, it always WAS and IS a heart issue. it's just that people can be so damn stubborn. like in the OT God allowed divorce but because the Jews were being stubborn. (someone help me out with the NT verse regarding this issue.) but jesus came to let us know that divorce wasn't something God wanted since he first created mankind.

have you ever read stories about what happened to the black people who were freed from slavery in the U.S.? some of them went buck wild with their freedom, some wanted to stay with their masters. freeing an entire population from slavery overnight causes majorly drastic changes upon a community. so imagine the israelites being freed from slavery literally overnight. wow. God pretty much kept them in line with all the rules and regulations.

and some of those rules and regulations regarded sacrifice. why? to foreshadow the sacrifice of His son. but why did God choose sacrifice as a means to show His grace and mercy? perhaps because when adam and eve sinned, death came into the world. sacrifice is a way of showing that things died because they sinned. it's not like God NEEDED the sacrifice to forgive you. sacrificing was meant for the Jewish people to REMIND them about what sin does and how it affects the world.

the emphasis on blood is cuz blood is the life.

what is pleasing to the Lord is not the sacrifice itself but obedience.

psalm 51:16... for thou desirest not sacrifices; else i would give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. (17) the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise (18) do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: bulid thou the walls of Jerusalem. (19) then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering...

prov 21:3... to do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.

isaiah 1:11... to what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to me? saith the Lord: i am full of the burnt offerings of rams...(13) bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me (14) your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; i am weary to bear them (15) and when ye spread forth your hands i will hide mine eyes from you, when ye make many prayers, i will not hear; your hands are full of blood (16) wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes, cease to do evil... (18) come now let us reason together, saith the Lord; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow... (19) if ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land.

now, God didn't mean okay peeps, it's okay not to sacrifice. he laid down the rules of sacrifice, but he was tired of people using the sacrifice, thinking that the ACT itself cleansed them of their sin! nothing that you can do can cleanse you of sin. in order to be cleansed, you have to confess it, repent of it, and in the case of the OT, you had to make a sacrifice to show God that you understood what the deal was. we don't have to sacrifice now, but that's what mass is all about.

are you upset that God required the blood of innocent animals? that's what it seems you're talking about. remember, animals are not human, God gave man dominion over animals, and God required the animal sacrifice at one point. he's not an evil God, he's a just God. it wasn't God who decided to kill his creatures to begin with, all things die because of what ADAM AND EVE DID.

-- rina (hellorina@aol.com), January 23, 2005.

Also it wasn’t as if God was demanding EXTRA animals be killed. The animals chosen for sacrifice (young adult males without blemish) were ones that would otherwise be slaughtered anyway (because they make the best meat and because female animals were required for breeding - one ram can service many ewes). God commanded the Jews to eat the paschal lamb.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 23, 2005.

Letsnto forget th Foreshadowign of our Lords a dvet inthe act...This beign the principle of importance.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 23, 2005.

Careful now. The Bible is clear that there can be no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood. That's just the way God designed His Justice. Yes, Old Covenant sacrifices were foreshadows of Christ's sacrifice, but I didn't want to convey the misnomer that the killing of the animals was purely symbolic. It actually cleansed of sin and was necessary until Jesus' sacrifice once for all.

Hebrews 9

"For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

"And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), January 23, 2005.

Dear David:
The Passover rite was only the foreshadowing in Israel's spiritual life of Jesus on the cross. What gave the Paschal Lamb significance was that Almighty God Himself counted it as His very Son. The first Passover in itself foreshadows our salvation; all must partake in full of the Lamb's immolation. But without Jesus and the cross no animal offering would result EVER, in forgiveness of sins.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 23, 2005.

actually im not upset about sacrificing animals, just curious why it has to be an animal. why not plants or other things? why need to sacrifice anything at all?(meaning repentant heart is not enough)

also, why does God(meaning Jesus) has to be sacrificed to appease God?

-- janeiro (janeiro@janeiro.com), January 24, 2005.

Dear Janeiro:
God was pleased with the offerings of Abel, in Genesis. It was man's way of giving thanks, by parting with the fruits of his labor, to serve God.

Clearly the material goods are beautiful in God's sight not because He desires any; but because they represent the heart of the one who loves Him. If you give your heart to Him, God loves you and accepts your love.

When it came time for our redemption, and the total forgiveness of sin,

No other offering was equal in the eys of God to the debt we owed, collectivey and individually; none other but the offering of God for God.

To be offered GOD; as the ultimate sin offering; is more than sufficient to make up for every sin in the history of the human race and more. Nothing is lacking. But how would men offer such a sin offering, to atone before Him? There is no way. Man is finite; a speck of dust. God is infinitely holy and man has offended Him; an irreparable offense.

But God loved mankind so deeply He sent his only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ; willing to become one of us. Willing to become the Redeemer of all men and women; from the beginning of the world until the end. He is God. He made us innocent once more, dying on the cross to wipe away all our sins. God the Father loves His divine Son; who loves me and you enough to offer His life for us as a man. How can the Father turn away the one his Son sacrificed His life for on a cross?

It's more than simple appeasement. It's Christ's own love for God His Almighty Father expressed as one of us. As a MAN. A man like us has loved God with the infinite love of God. That's the holiest mystery of them all; Man-God gives everything for love of Father- God, to redeem all mankind. Only Jesus could accomplish it, and He has!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 24, 2005.