David Wilbur makes this claim: 'Christians only stopped participating in temple services because after 70 AD, there were no longer any temple services to participating in'. https://youtu.be/cEBJi9jWguw 16:11 Is there any proof/disproof that believers keept going to the temple after Paul was arrested (Acts 21:27-36)?

In Genesis 4, we read the following account of Cain and Abel: > So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And **the Lord had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard.** So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell. Genesis 4:3-5 The story continues that Cain continued in anger and ended up murdering Abel. So, Cain's offering was not accepted by God, while Abel's offering was. Why was this so? What was it about Cain's offering that made it unacceptable, what was it about Abel's offering that made it acceptable?

Of course there would be no sin atonement offering, but there were the other sacrifices that had nothing to do with sin. If Jesus in fact followed the law perfectly, He would have had to have made some of these following sacrifices it would seem. Sacrifices were for peace offerings, fellowship offerings, votive offerings, offerings of consecration. In John 7 Jesus attends Sukkot and is in the crowd during the water libation ceremony. Jesus also instructs a man healed with leprosy to go to the temple and make a sacrifice, probably of thanksgiving. In Matthew 17 Jesus pays the temple tax with a coin found in a fish that Peter catches. This is merely a question for intellectual speculation since the scriptures don't define them.

The Catholic understanding of the celebration of the eucharist is that it is fundamentally a representation of Christ's sacrifice, and is a fulfillment of the Levitical sacrificial system. Are there Protestant denominations that continue this tradition of sacrificing God to Himself via the eucharist? To give some background as to why Catholics celebrate the eucharist this way, the reasoning is that sacrifice is a universal human expression of the ultimateness of God. It is not only about propitiation for sin. Mankind destructively sacrifices to God what is most materially precious to him to demonstrate that all he owns, including himself, belongs to God, and he is even willing to sacrifice his own life. The first instance of this is the sacrifices of Cain and Abel, which were not sacrifices as propitiation for sin, but rather sacrifices to indicate the supremacy of God above all created things. The Levitical sacrificial system is a continuation and elaboration of Abel's sacrifice, and sin propitiation is only one aspect of this system. That is why after Jesus' bloody sacrifice on the cross for our sins, and non bloody sacrifice during the institution of the Eucharist during the last supper, there is still a need for continual non bloody sacrifice, to still indicate God's supremacy. However, the Levitical system, and all previous sacrifices offered by humans are insufficient, since God is all sufficient and needs nothing from us, therefore nothing we can sacrifice to God is a worthy sacrifice. Jesus fixed this problem by offering God Himself, through Christ transubstantiated in the Eucharist, as a non bloody sacrifice during mass. So, that is why the Catholic church continues to offer the eucharist as a sacrifice of Christ, not because it doesn't believe Christ's death on the cross is all sufficient for forgiveness of sins, but because of the general institution of sacrifice as an expression of God's ultimateness, and only God is an adequate sacrifice for God. As a side note, this is why the Catholic understanding of the eucharistic sacrifice necessitates the doctrine of transubstantiation. If the bread and wine were not truly turned into Christ's divinity, then the eucharist would not truly be a sacrifice of God to Himself, and so we'd still have to be carrying on the Levitical animal sacrifice system, or something even more extreme.

One of my latest questions concerned the issue of animal sacrifices in the Old Testament times. (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/103127/why-were-animal-sacrifices-required-for-those-in-the-old-testament-period-but-n) . There are verses in the Bible that suggest that animal sacrifice led to forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22; Numbers 15:25 (ESV): and Leviticus 4:20). One of the responses to my question (above) asserted that it is impossible to have salvation through animal sacrifice. Since childhood, we have been taught that salvation is through Jesus. The discussion on my earlier question made me ask myself whether salvation and forgiveness of sins are the same thing. If a person had their sins forgiven (for instance under the Old Testament covenant), is that different from salvation?

The complexity and intricacy of the whole array of sacrifices instituted in the wilderness as the children of Israel were instructed to do so, is , in retrospect, clearly a setting forth of all that Christ suffered, expressed in various ways and by different means. The wave offering, the heave offering, the burnt offering, the sin offering : all demonstrate different aspects of the sufferings and death of Christ at Golgotha. But what is there in the Old Testament writings that would have given someone at that time the prospect to look forward to, that, eventually, in God's own time, they would all be realised in *the offering up of a humanity* ? I say 'offering up of a humanity' as I am being careful in the way I express the matter of the humanity and the Deity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and because I am seeking a response on the basis of Trinitarian Protestantism.

In chapter 4 of the Book of Genesis, Cain is written to have killed his brother Abel out of jealousy over the difference in their offerings to God. Cain was bestowed the role of a tiller of the ground, while Abel was a keeper of sheep. *"In the course of time, Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel for his part brought of the firstlings of his flock, their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell."* At this time in the creation story, there were only about four people on earth who did also not have a bible or societal customs for sacrifice or any sort of offerings. Adam and Eve were also aware that they had to make sacrifices for the sake of God, but why? God is never mentioned to have instructed them to make offerings to him (which doesn't make very much sense to me anyway), but they still do. Was it something already instinctual in them as people? Is it an inherent human desire to make sacrifices to God?

We read in Jn 19:33-34( KJV): > But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. Possible physiological reasons for the flow of blood and water include the phenomenon where the physical toll of the crucifixion and scourging caused a buildup of fluid around Jesus' heart and lungs. Going back to OT, we see in Lev 5:9: > And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be wrung out at the bottom of the altar: it is a sin offering. Traditionally, the water from Jesus' pierced heart is taken as an indication that he had no blood left in the body . (A number of prayers contain the statement that Jesus shed blood to the last drop in order to atone for the sins of mankind ). In fact, John the Evangelist's narration appears to have been made with the purpose of substantiating that Jesus in deed was dead on the cross. Traditional teachings perhaps put together both the Leviticus instructions on draining of the sacrificial animal/ bird of all its blood, as well as Jn 19:34 to conclude that Jesus had shed blood to the last drop on the cross. My question is: How do Bible scholars interpret Jn 19:34 ? Inputs from experts of any denomination are welcome.

**No Christian can claim that the fact they believe or have accepted Jesus as their personal saviour is a full-proof barrier against committing sin going forward.** Many discussions I have encountered on this forum take the view that Old Testament animal sacrifices and repentance were inneffectual and would not reduce the propensity to sin (they had become routine, repetitive, and "religious"). **If faith/belief in Jesus doesn’t stop one from sinning again, in what way is it better than or different from Old Testament animal sacrifice coupled with repentance?** **Many great men and women of the Old Testament times are recorded in scripture as having highly intimate and powerful relationships with God; so it can not be true that it was impossible to have a personal relationship with God under the belief system of those times.** If even Christians who have accepted Jesus as their personal saviour can fall into sin and repent; **is the advantage of the "new regime" only in the fact that we don't have to spend money buying sacrificial animals?**

Genesis 4:3-4; Leviticus 3:2; Leviticus 16:5; Ezekiel 44:1;Numbers 6:10-11; and Exodus 29:10-14 are some of the many places in the Bible that speak of God requiring animal sacrifices or sacrifices being made to God for expiation of sins or for thanks. If God's plan all along was that Jesus would come as a perfect sacrifice to atone for the sins of all of humanity; why were animal sacrifices required of the people of those "Old Testament" times, but not of our time; yet Jesus was destined to die for the sins of both ("groups")? My question is not restricted to the purpose of animal sacrifice as asked in this post: (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/842/what-was-the-purpose-to-animal-sacrifices) ; but I ask why we no longer have to offer them when they were required of earlier generations despite the fact Jesus would die for their sins as well as our sins.

Can a divine being claim to have made a very heavy sacrifice when he uses his creative power and makes another vessel / being / substitute creature that he gives away or gives up to be tortured on his behalf? **Is it Him who is suffering or the being he created?** When humans sacrifice a cow / sheep / goat, place the knife on its throat and cut it, is it the animal or the owner that feels the pain?

Was Jesus The Lamb of God or the High Priest (whom offers the lamb as a sacriffice)? John the baptist said " Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" John 1:19 And in Hebrews 4:14 it is written "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God".

>If you cannot afford two doves or two pigeons, you shall bring **two pounds of flour** as a sin offering. You shall not put any olive oil or any incense on it, because it is a sin offering, not a grain offering. You shall bring it to the priest, who will take a handful of it as a token that it has all been offered to the Lord, and he will burn it on the altar as a food offering. **It is an offering to take away sin.** In this way the priest shall offer the sacrifice for your sin, ***and you will be forgiven***. The rest of the flour belongs to the priest, just as in the case of a grain offering. — Leviticus 5:11‭–‬13 GNT If flour can be accepted, why did Jesus have to die for the wicked?

I would like to know, if possible, at least the approximate age of Isaac when Abraham offered him as a sacrifice to God. Based on Abraham's advanced age, it would seem that Isaac did not resist in being bound to the wood. Also, it seems that he was no toddler since he helped carry the wood that he was to be bound to. Has a reasonable estimate of Isaac's age ever been ascertained at the time of his sacrificial offering to God? Thank you.

## The situation According to Catholicism, during the Consecration, if for some reason, the priest consecrated only one of the species validly, would that configure an imperfect Sacrifice or the Sacrifice wouldn't even take place? Some examples I'm thinking to achieve this situation: * Using a valid matter for only one of the species (e.g. bread and cider or barley bread and wine) * Using a valid form for only one of the species (e.g. making a mistake on Words of Institution of one of the species) * A priest who dies in the middle of the Consecration I think is safe to say that the second example is the most common way such a thing could happen. And that being the case, it's totally possible for someone discover the possible invalidity, which is exactly what is in question, as it is happening. Take that as the general situation for this question. ----- ## My research ### Catholic Encyclopedia In my research about it, I came to this article about the Sacrifice of the Mass from The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1911). There are two important parts (emphasis mine) that seem to answer my question: > ### The existence of the Mass > [...] Furthermore, the unbloody Sacrifice of the Eucharistic Christ is in its nature a transient action, while the Sacrament of the Altar continues as something permanent after the sacrifice, and can even be preserved in monstrance and ciborium. Finally, this difference also deserves mention: communion under one form only is the reception of the whole sacrament, whereas, **without the use of the two forms of bread and wine** (the symbolic separation of the Body and Blood), the mystical slaying of the victim, and therefore **the Sacrifice of the Mass, does not take place**. > ### The constituent parts of the Mass > [...] Not only older theologians such as Frassen, Gotti, and Bonacina, but also later theologians such as Schouppen, Stentrup and Fr. Schmid, have supported the **untenable theory that when one of the consecrated elements is invalid**, such as barley bread or cider, **the consecration of the valid element not only produces the Sacrament, but also the (mutilated) sacrifice**. Their chief argument is that the sacrament in the Eucharist is inseparable in idea from the sacrifice. But they entirely overlooked the fact that Christ positively prescribed the twofold consecration for the sacrifice of the Mass (not for the sacrament), and especially the fact that in the consecration of one element only the intrinsically essential relation of the Mass to the sacrifice of the Cross is not symbolically represented. Since it was no mere death from suffocation that Christ suffered, but a bloody death, in which His veins were emptied of their Blood, this condition of separation must receive visible representation on the altar, as in a sublime drama. This condition is fulfilled only by the double consecration, which brings before our eyes the Body and the Blood in the state of separation, and thus represents the mystical shedding of blood. Consequently, **the double consecration is an absolutely essential element of the Mass as a relative sacrifice**. But just before this last citation, it actually is preceded by a disclaimer: > While the Consecration as such can be shown with certainty to be the act of Sacrifice, **the necessity of the twofold consecration** can be demonstrated *only as highly probable*. ### Summa Theologiae I tried to find something about it in the Summa, and the best I could get was a response where St. Thomas describes that once the consecration has started it _should_ be finished, even requiring another priest to do it if necessary. But, this could be a necessity in terms of proper way to celebrate Mass, not that it would not be a valid Sacrifice, at least that's how it seems to me. Also, @Geremia remembered me about Missal's De Defectibus which proposes basically the same thing. > If the priest be stricken by death or grave sickness before the consecration of our Lord's body and blood, there is no need for it to be completed by another. But if this happens after the consecration is begun, for instance, when the body has been consecrated and before the consecration of the blood, or even after both have been consecrated, then the celebration of the mass ought to be finished by someone else. Hence, as is laid down (Decretal vii, q. 1), we read the following decree of the (Seventh) Council of Toledo: "We consider it to be fitting that when the sacred mysteries are consecrated by priests during the time of mass, if any sickness supervenes, in consequence of which they cannot finish the mystery begun, let it be free for the bishop or another priest to finish the consecration of the office thus begun. For nothing else is suitable for completing the mysteries commenced, unless the consecration be completed either by the priest who began it, or by the one who follows him: because they cannot be completed except they be performed in perfect order. For since we are all one in Christ, the change of persons makes no difference, since unity of faith insures the happy issue of the mystery. Yet let not the course we propose for cases of natural debility, be presumptuously abused: and let no minister or priest presume ever to leave the Divine offices unfinished, unless he be absolutely prevented from continuing. If anyone shall have rashly presumed to do so, he will incur sentence of excommunication." > > Summa Theologiae, Tertia Pars, Q. 83, A. 6 ### Priests/Theologians opinions A good priest that I trust (friend of mine), said that such a case would configure a "gravely injured Sacrifice". So another similar opinion to the theologians quoted before (mutilated Sacrifice). I also asked another priest online and he said that the sacrifice would not happen in this case. I addressed this question directly to other trusted individuals, and still waiting a response. Will answer myself if I encounter something clear about this situation. ## Concluding questions - Is there anything said about this by the magisterium (even if indirectly)? - Is there an actual answer to this question, or it's a disputed thing among theologians? - Basically, can it be answered (with certainty) at all? If we can arrive at a definitive conclusion, and it is that the Sacrifice doesn't take place, then, it would follow that _in principle_ it would not be enough to fulfill the Sunday obligation if that was the case, right? Take into consideration the example I proposed that is most probable, where the priest commits an error in the form unintentionally, and anyone who notices does so as it happens. Then, anyone who's ignorant of the deficiency in the form (either by not knowing it, or knowing but not noticing the deficiency) would not be liable. That's not in question. But consider then a well informed Catholic who noticed the error. How far the Sunday obligation would impel them to go to another celebration? Only if they have the possibility to do so? Having planning other activities would be enough to say they can't? I know that if it happened to me, I would do my best to go to a another celebration out of Love of God, and because of the uncertainty that led me ask this question. But it seems to me that someone who did their part trying to participate the Sacrifice of Mass, even if it was invalid and they were well informed to notice that when it happened, they couldn't be liable for a mistake of the priest. Am I right about it?

We see in Gen 22:13 how Abraham saw a ram caught by the horn in a thicket and sacrificed it in lieu of Isaac. Coming over to New Testament we see Jesus being made to wear a crown of thorns. It is believed that the thorn Jesus wore had been made from the twigs of bush. We see here a strange resemblance. Unfortunately, none of the Evangelists draw a parallel between the ram that Abraham sacrificed and Jesus who offered himself on sacrifice vis a vis the thorny twigs that held on to the heads of both. My question therefore is: Are there any teachings from the side of the Catholic Church, that establish a co-relation between Christ and the ram that Abraham sacrificed?

> Genesis 8:20 (NIV) Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking > some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt > offerings on it. Noah sacrificed burnt offerings. What about Adam and Eve? Did they ever perform animal sacrifice?

John 6:44 (KJB): > “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” The Bible makes it clear in John 12:32 that Jesus Christ will draw all men to Himself. John 12:32 (KJB): > “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” Can we say that all those who the Father draws are those who Jesus draws unto himself by his death?

I'm curious if there is any significant scholarly research or works regarding a theory that a key driver of the spread of Christianity was to replace human and animal sacrifice from religious practice?

An earlier question asks about the first animal sacrifice . The two top answers both suggest that God instituted animal sacrifice by example when He killed an animal to provide Adam and Eve with clothing in Gen 3:21 . It is easy to find that opinion in sermons or statements about Christian doctrine, but I wondered if the animal skins were regarded as sacrificial in the early church? What is the earliest statement that the clothing in Gen 3:21 represent a sacrifice? I would hope to find an answer within the first few centuries of Christianity, but if not then the earliest teaching of any Christian leader is fair game.