[blue-duncan]

How is what you said, ("The relationship is between the sign (animal sacrifice) and the thing signified (The blood of the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ). The difference is that one was a mere shadow of the other. Shadow and substance. Col. 2:16,17.") different from ("Animal sacrifice never accomplished the propitiation/expiation for sin. It did accomplish atonement, a covering for sin, by a ritualistic obedience, but it did not satisfy and placate God’s wrath towards sin")?

[topcat54]

Because I was not denying that animal sacrifices pictured propitiation/expiation/atonement, which seemed to be your claim, making, as it were, some distinction between atonement and propitiation/expiation wrt animals.

Animal sacrifice never accomplished atonement. That was, I believe, your position.

Do you believe that animal sacrifice was a picture of the perfect propitiation/expiation/atonement of Christ?