If jesus needed to sacrafice his blood, why didn't he wait till the 21st century, and donate at a Blood Bank? At least that way his blood would have been good for something other than fertalizer for some forgotten Arab hill.
Blood sacrafices have exhisted far longer than Judiasm, let alone Christianity. Doesn't it bother christians that they are just worshiping a cheap knock off of sun worship? If sheep blood worked for the Jews for so long, why the heck was a person's needed? Were the sheep perfect and non-sinners? Did it matter if a Scott got to the sheep first?

Another question..if Jesus had been raped before he was hung on the cross, would he have still been perfect?

In traditional Hebrew sacrafices, the animal had to be "without blemish". In other words, without a mark. How does a cat-0-9 tails not leave a mark?

It would have been easier for all involved if God had merely demanded a sacrifice of snot or saliva.

Modern Christianity is based on the erroneous notion that in the Israelite temple cult, the shedding of blood was somehow related to the forgiveness of sin. In fact, the sacrifices were related directly to the temple cult institution and had nothing to do with forgiveness of sin in an abstract sense.

Most Christians and Jews believe the first blood sacrifice was to the Creator God. Abel sacrificed the of the best of his flock. Cain gave grain and it wasn't good enough. The sacrificial tradition was handed down from there...

In most cultures where it is done, blood sacrifice is most often associated not just with giving blood but with death. Someone or some animal dying in the place of another or to appease a god to get something. In Judaism and Christianity it has to do with justice and mercy. Justice that the sin has to be paid for and mercy that an animal or Christ has done it so that people don't have to.

We really don't know where the first tradition of blood sacrifice started but it isn't just the Jews. Also, Abraham acknowledged and gave tribute to those that worshiped the all-powerful creator God before the foundation of Judaism so it is not only conceivable that it wasn't original and borrowed, but it is Biblically authenticated! That doesn't prove anything about God except that he accepts the worship of those who aren't his chosen.

Epitome

Actually, Epitome, that is not why sacrifice is employed.

Sacrifice has to do with the purity of the temple, and setting desecration of the temple right (Lev. 16:20). It does not have to do with a vicarous punishment--the killing of the animal is not designed to "pay for the sin," but to maintain the ritual purity of the temple. If the holiness of the temple is not maintained, then Yahweh will leave--and/or get pissed.

Mary, in the New Testament had to give a sin offering (Lev. 5:11, 12:6-8) after giving birth to Jesus (Lk. 2:22-24). Having a baby is not a sin (is it?), but it does cause ritual impurity and so she has to offer a sacrifice to undo that.

There are a few different reasons for offerings, but sin offering is the one that has most to do with Christ's sacrifice and since that was the question, that's what I mentioned.

Here's a few references of sin offerings: Exodus 29:14, "But burn the bull's flesh and its hide and its offal outside the camp. It is a sin offering"
Exodus 30:10 "Once a year Aaron shall make atonement on its horns. This annual atonement must be made with the blood of the atoning sin offering for the generations to come. It is most holy to the LORD."
Leviticus 4:3"If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, he must bring to the LORD a young bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed."
Leviticus 4:20"...and do with this bull just as he did with the bull for the sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for them, and they will be forgiven."

There are many, many more. If you'd like more references go to Bible Gateway Search and type in 'sin offering' in the Old testiment.

An interesting note to your point: In the New Testiment, the body is considered the Temple of God and God now dwells in our hearts. So Christs blood purifying the temple is also consistant with the blood sacrifices you mentioned.


Epitome

[This message has been edited by Epitome (edited February 18, 2001).]

But keep in mind that Christian theology often argues that sacrifice was a way to "forgive sins" and it really wasn't. It is simply designed to cleanse oneself from ritual impurity--that is why having a baby is a "sin" that is supposed to be cleased by a "sin offering."

[This message has been edited by Le pede (edited February 18, 2001).]

A sin offering is for atonement... which is the forgiveness of sins... Here's a verse to help with you disbelief of what I'm saying is in the Bible.



It's my fault really, I should have looked it up in the first place rather than play round robin.

Epitome

It depends... when did Judaism and Christianity start? According to the Bible, from the beginning of the world people were sacrificing to God: Abel, Noah, Abraham... all the ancestors of what would eventually become the Jewish nation and later Christianity. It seems likely, thus, that the 'sun worship' and pagan sacrifices are, as you put it, 'a cheap knock off' of God's sacrifice system.


I'm not a theologian, but here goes: It seems that Jesus and only Jesus can forgive sins. ('No one comes to the father but through me'). Thus it's Jesus' sacrifice and only Jesus' sacrifice which forgives the sins. Therefore the Jewish sacrifice system must be symbolic of Jesus' death. He is the Lamb from God who forgives sins. In sacrificing lambs, the Jews were symbolically recognising Jesus' death as their forgiving Lamb.

If the answer's no, the question doesn't matter. If the answer's yes, then he wasn't, so it still doesn't matter, but God could have stopped it happening if it was important.

The obvious answer is to see the whipping as part of the sacrifice. He was pure when it started.

[This message has been edited by Tercel (edited February 24, 2001).]

I applaud the previous posts, yet in many respects they are all partially true. The fact of the matter is that both the terms of “sin” and “atonement” have a much broader usage than in modern day English or theology. The answer to your first question of waiting to the 21st century is that then it is not a sacrifice that costs anything. The whole lesson of the sacrifice is that it took something from me that was dear. Anything short of death was no good.

Another interesting concept in the ancient world is that life is both liquid and solid, blood and fat (Anchor Bible Dictionary). It is believed that this was derived from frequent battles and disembowelment. Hence, many nations ate blood and fat to gain spiritual life force power. Some believe this is partially because of they happened upon the high protein value of blood. In the OT, these parts of the animal were forbidden to be eaten except by God Himself figuratively in the act of burning it on the altar (Leviticus 3:11). Some pagan nations thought they empowered their god by giving him this life food to eat. Although Israelite culture eventually was plagued by this thought, theologically Israel was much different. Their God was self-existent, and omnipotent apart from their offerings (Psalms 50:7-15).

2nd question: Most don’t realize that sacrifice was a very involved process practiced by many nations. But the art of sacrifice in each is very different with varying ideas. This is where Israel makes its distinction.

3rd question: The Jews ran into a slight problem called humanity. I could sin and offer the sacrifice, sin again and offer again countless times. The sacrifice did not bring about inner change in every case. This inner change (repentance) is what is required by both Judaism and Christianity for the sacrifice to be effective at all. This could even be called the OT system of salvation (Judaism, Moore). Judaism then begins to envision a better sacrifice, an ultimate one, that would actually bring about obedience in the person for which the sacrifice is offered. How this comes about is a lengthy discussion tracing the various evolutions of the idea in the OT.

4th & 5th question: The sheep were no more perfect than a cockroach. They were acceptable. The laws about perfection relate to blemishes and defects in the animal that would devalue it in the market. The requirement was that you bring the best to God. You don’t give the sickly animal that profits you nothing. You don’t give of the net, but the gross (I use this as an analogy that is only poor at best). In fact you can tell how serious the crime is by the value of the animal sacrificed, whether male or female, young or old, big or small. This would tend to make the sacrifice of Jesus seem extremely potent in what it covers. While it is true that in Judaism human sacrifice is detestable, from long in the OT the death of the righteous has a purgative effect.

6th question: Perfection in what sense? Yes, He was of utmost value. However, I think your asking perfection in the sense of moral purity. First, I don’t think rape victims incur moral guilt. Also, Greek concept of perfect is often the word telos and means wholeness or completeness. It is often used to signify right relationship on a horizontal (man to man) level in the Bible. In this (as well as other areas) His telos was not marred.