Why don't christians offer animal sacrifices, if Jesus said that he didn't came to change the law?

Laws of men. Not god.

Is that a greyhound in OP?
What is it?

It's called Borzoi.
I like long nose doggers.
I wish I had an italian Greyhound

I watched Westworld too user

>we are too lasy to follow the Law to fullfill it, so we'll say that it was enough for Jesus to do it for us

Didn't they sacrifice bulls and crap in the 300 years before relevancy?

Ascriptural nonsense.

Attached: sad pepe.png (412x351, 63K)

>Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
>For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
>Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
>For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

"Fulfilling" a Law is quite ambiguous, not even in the sense of ending it, but in the sense of exposing or inverting it. Like Socrates affirming his magnanimity and humiliating the Law precisely by obeying it. There is also allusion to the Law not being wholly good in saying that it will pass, and allusion that its conditional passing is wholly evil in saying it will only otherwise pass when Heaven and Earth pass.

this here is a prime example of how rotten christians are. They twist, twist and twist god's word until they can sleep better at night.

The explanation that Mosaic Law was fulfilled by Jesus in the "Newtonian" sense is not only more tenuous but the most absurd explanation there is.

Paulite degeneration.

Not mentioned yet is less institutional power for the first three centuries of Christianity. An apocalyptic peasant cult meeting in secret under the thumb of Roman prosecution can ill afford to incorporate animal sacrifices to its rituals.

The real answer is that the Apostles decided that Gentile converts don't have to do any of it, so it doesn't matter.

Why are there so many interpretations? Can't some learned men just sit down and decide "we'll read it like this"?

Churches did it, mostly in favour of Pauline doctrine.

If you do animal sacrifices then you don't believe that Christ had any effect on the battle between good and evil

Paul performs sacrifices (Acts 21:26). Neither Jew nor Gentile performs them anymore because there is no Temple.

Why the long face?

Joos are too lazy to follow their own rules so I guess it's fair.

The dog has cancer.

didnt come to change the law but to fulfil it is i believe what jesus said. cant remember specific verse. but yeah, jesus was the ultimate be all end all sacrifice so why would we do the animal thing still.

I want one.

I believe that it isn't meant that Jesus' sacrifice was to absolve us from our sins directly, but to show us an example how to reach true salvation through love and sacrifice of everything bodily and earthly. So his teachings are actually a hardcore addition to the Mosaic Law.

men cannot follow the law perfectly because men is not perfect, Jesus is.
It's not about following the law perfectly anyway, it's about recognizing your mistakes, honestly regretting it and asking for forgiveness, trying not to commit the same mistake again.

TIRED: There was like a temple in Jerusalem or something...

WIRED: The Temple is your body and the animal to sacrifice is your identifying therewith.

>Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man.

Attached: 1534604455351.jpg (400x609, 70K)

He came to fulfill it.

So was every good man from Abel to Nicholas II. Murdered by the same tribe too.

Attached: reality goggles.jpg (1200x928, 183K)

that's beautiful user

Based Thomasposter

>Nicholas II
>good
>saint
>martyr
>нe тpяпкa

The first sacrifice begins with Cain and Abel, which puts forward that it is good to sacrifice what one values most to God, not for your own sake but out of reverence to God. Cain perverts this relationship when, knowing Able is good in God's sight, makes a sacrifice out of Able to spite God's rejection of his prior sacrifice. This concept is first consecrated by the sacrifice of Isaac, ransomed by his circumcision. God had promised Abraham his heirs would become the greatest kingdom; late in life, his only son was Isaac. Abraham, with his faith in God was willing to sacrifice what would appear to be the only way God's promise could be fulfilled, and in knowing Abraham's faith showed Abraham, that although such a sacrifice would be, in some sense, just, God would never ask it, so instead make a covenant with the circumcision, which represents the depth of the sacrifice we owe God, but which he does not collect. This begins a tradition of sacrifice in which the best of one's possessions are offered to God in proportion to what is asked, not out of any need or desire on his part, but out of recognition of the proper order of things, that even our most valuable possessions are nothing to us compared to our duty and love of him. This tradition is fulfilled with the paschal sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who is God. Jesus, as God, the first born Son of God, who is loved above all else, gives himself up willingly in sacrifice, echoing and reversing the sacrifice of Isaac, to redeem all man kind of our transgressions. In the orthodox churches, this sacrifice and new covenant is remade every Sunday at mass, and we receive God's eternal love anew. So we do not sacrifice animals, because the sacrifice God has made for us surpasses any other sacrifice we could make, and can only be met with the sacrifice of our own earthly life in service to God.

Attached: 1534036066561 - Copy.png (393x349, 16K)

Devil's on the wall.

Attached: bb5d3c4de4cb334015b7bccee066c1d49389b23bbd999c3df8036db248972717.png (451x666, 151K)

Reminder that Matthew 20:28/Mark 10:45 is the ONLY allusion to Jesus sacrificing himself for anything. In fact, the Gospels imply that it is NOT the case.

>Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
>No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
>There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.
>And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?

"That I might take it again", as Man moreover, makes sacrifice null. That the Jews are angry further proves the point.

>I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

Cut and dry, really.

>If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.

That Original Sin is likewise all but absent from the Old Testament is common knowledge, but barely anyone wants to touch this verse in general. Proper Dialectic, as Hegelian as it gets, or rather, Hegel is as Christian as it gets. No "Newtonian" sin and atonement at all.

What a headache it must be to be a christian. Your entire philosophy and worldview is entirely contingent on some tenuous historical events barely held together by centuries of damage control and shamelessly ripping metaphysics off from others like Plato and then doing everything in your power to murder anyone who disagrees. Even today christianity is maintained only by exhausted and demoralized herds of people holding guns to each others' heads and saying "I bleeb. Do you bleeb? "

>Then came the day of unleavened bread
>On which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed
>Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover
>this is my body, given for you
>I am the bread of life
>This cup is the new covenant
>so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom
From Luke. I strongly encourage you to not accept so readily these cherry-picked and litigious exegeses.

Woops, wrong user. Meant to replay to this:

>Metaphysics has an author
If it's true, it doesn't belong to Plato.

C R I N G E

It's very simple:

1. Between Jesus and those who contradict him, from Paul to the Pope, always prioritize the former.

2. Do not plaster Scripture with Doctrine.

3. Do not mix and match verses.

4. Do not try to domesticate Jesus with "common sense" or otherwise tepid Anglo Ethics.

5. Read Hegel.

Very weaselly quoting, even worse thinking. Luke/the narrator mentions the lamb, not Jesus. Let's pretend you're not conflating the Eucharist with Atonement. Jesus also says he himself wants to eat with them so...he's sacrificing himself for himself as well? Not that this would be out of place in Catholic Doctrine.

I'm going to bed. I'm ONTO your bitch ass.

Christ's sacrifice nullified much of the Jewish laws, it's also why Christians don't practice circumcision, kosher dietary laws, etc. The Christian form of sacrifice is through fasting, charity and martyrdom.
New covenant, different needs.

Why do you think you're cleverer and closer to the truth than the very people who gave these words to you? Jesus says, let us eat the passover, and then says "take this bread, it is my body, given for you. I am the bread of life," and "this cup is the new covenant," which cannot be taken in any other way than in referencing the many covenants God made with the Israelites, which always accompanied a sacrifice and the promise of a kingdom, just as Jesus here says "so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom." You could not make a more direct allusion to Jesus as a passover sacrifice.

Is that a horse?

As well, as another user said, Christianity is not a legalistic religion like Talmudic Judaism is.
he's hateful and ignorant and therefore builds up a wall of lies to maintain a sense of superiority, rather than the humiliation that is becoming of a Christian