(March 18, 2014 at 3:55 pm)rasetsu Wrote:(March 18, 2014 at 8:51 am)Drich Wrote: Was Christ released in the wilderness? No, He was nailed to a cross and left to die. What you have is a transferance of sin to the 'scape goat.' while the blood offering was made to cover the transgressors of said sins.
Christ wasn't let loose in the wilderness, but neither was he a blood sacrifice or a burnt offering. Thus your saying he was one rather than the other is just bare assertion. The Jewish leaders turned Jesus loose to die at the hands of the secular authorities. He wasn't "sacrificed" by any Jew, and he was cut loose into the wilderness of Roman justice to die there. He satisfies the tradition of the scapegoat better than the blood sacrifice, which must be carried out by Jews to be of any value. Either he was a scapegoat for the atonement of Israel, which he clearly was, or his death had no meaning because it wasn't a proper sacrifice. You yourself quote where Aaron had to be involved in the sacrifice.
There is a theme in the NT that demonstrates that Jesus was indeed to be considered the final blood sacrifice.:
Hebrews 9:11-18 confirms the symbolism of blood as life and applies Leviticus 17:11 to the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. Verse 12 states clearly that the Old Testament blood sacrifices were temporary and only atoned for sin partially and for a short time, hence the need to repeat the sacrifices yearly. But when Christ entered the Most Holy Place, He did so to offer His own blood once for all time, making future sacrifices unnecessary. This is what Jesus meant by His dying words on the cross: “It is finished” (John 19:30). Never again would the blood of bulls and goats cleanse men from their sin. Only by accepting Jesus’ blood, shed on the cross for the remission of sins, can we stand before God covered in the righteousness of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21).
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/blood-sacrif...z2wPUMWad8
