Why oh Why

[Angrboda]

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

"Christ ... offered himself unblemished to God"
Note the absence of a Jew offering up the sacrifice for his sins. This sounds more like a scapegoat than a blood sacrifice. Also note, as argued below, that if Leviticus 17:11 is true, then the scapegoat ritual itself must be considered a form of blood sacrifice.

and applies Leviticus 17:11 to the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is at odds with the concept of the scapegoat, because this would imply that the scapegoat either is the equivalent of a blood sacrifice, or that the scapegoating ritual described in Leviticus 17 doesn't offer real atonement. Since the scapegoating in Leviticus does indeed offer real atonement, Hebrews 9:11-18 clearly implies that it to can be considered a blood sacrifice. Either the scapegoat's blood is offered up for the sin of Israel by offering it up to God through release, or this passage is simply wrong. Since you obviously don't believe Hebrews 9 is wrong, we can only conclude that the sacrifice of the scapegoat was equivalent to a standard blood sacrifice.

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.

Verse 12 says no such thing.

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).

Nowhere in this passage in John does it say any such thing. They're just pulling shit out of their asses and "claiming" it has something to do with the text.

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).

The passage in 2 Corinthians is so irrelevant as to be laughable. It has no bearing on the question whatsoever.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/blood-sacrif...z2wPUMWad8

There isn't "more" to be read at this link, only the same bare assertion that you're making which is unsupported by the text. Linking to a page which does not advance your argument any is a waste of my time. The text says, "All of the many, many blood sacrifices seen throughout the Old Testament were foreshadowing the true, once-for-all-time sacrifice to come so that the Israelites would never forget that, without the blood, there is no forgiveness. This shedding of blood is a substitutionary act." This is nothing but a bare assertion and adds nothing to your bare assertion that the sacrifice of Christ was a blood sacrifice and therefore not a scapegoating.

If you can't divine that such a text adds nothing to your argument, maybe you shouldn't be in the business of interpreting texts. If you continue linking me to irrelevant word studies, I'm going to stop reading them and demand you include their argument in your own words. Just as we discovered in our discussion of the word bohu, you appear not to be able to comprehend the things you read in any depth.

Additionally, if you're going to quote an outside source, irrelevant or not, include better indication that the included quotation is a quotation. I spent a good bit of time responding to the words of your link before realizing they weren't your own.

---

In sum, all you've done is solidify the case that Jesus' atonement was a scapegoating, done nothing to support your bare assertion, shown by additional text that my claim is consistent with Jesus having been a scapegoat, and wasted my time by linking to an irrelevant article and failing to quote properly.