Oh?
Why not?
In order to bring a sacrifice, one should be worthy to approach that close to G-d, which is something that is very difficult to achieve in our time. A deed which one takes on voluntarily as an additional service to G-d must be done in an especially sincere and holy way. If the additional service to G-d is not performed by these higher standards, it will be considered as blemished before Him. It is obvious that this type of Torah-based Divine service should be instructed and supervised only by a reliable and expert Orthodox Rabbi, which is very difficult to arrange in our time.
Elsie is again making an argument based on the American Evangelical Protestant worldview. The theory is that, since the sacrifices are not being offered in the Holy Temple at this time, then the "sacrifice" of J*sus simply must have taken their place, else G-d would be compelled by His Holiness to destroy and damn the entire human race. They simply do not understand the principals of the Torah.
They forget that this is not at all the only time in history when the sacrifices were not being offered. Not only were they missing during the Babylonian Captivity of seventy years, but they weren't even offered every day at the Tabernacle in the Wilderness. The Torah plainly states that the offerings were made whenever the Israelites were settled down in a single place, but when they were traveling and the Tabernacle was disassembled, there were no sacrifices.
They also don't understand that the chata't (sin offering) only atoned for sins committed inadvertently and did not atone for intentional sins at all. Intentional sins had to be punished by the Beit Din (American evangelicals tend to conflate all punishment of sin with "eternal damnation"). Intentional sins can only be erased through repentance.
They also ignore the fact that, while non-Jews have always been permitted to offer sacrifices, they have never at any time been required to do so. Only Israel was obliged to offer the sacrifices mandated in the Torah.
And finally, they don't understand how difficult it would be for non-Jews to correctly offer a qorban. It would have to be offered on a multi-stone altar that when not being used would have to be buried to prevent it from becoming ritually impure. Non-Jews are permitted to offer only the `olah, the "whole burnt offering," and not sin offerings, trespass offerings, or guilt offerings. Finally, the skin of the sacrifice would have to be presented to a Jewish kohen, all of whom (except the very young) are now ritually impure via contact with dead bodies.
American Evangelical Protestants believe in chrstianity because "the bible" (ie, their Protestant bible) tells them to. They never question how their bible was assembled. They literally assume it is self-evidently true and self-authenticating, and so long as their Protestant bible contains a "new testament" they will never question its validity. Until they learn that it is G-d Who authorizes the Bible and not the other way around, they are hopeless.
> Elsie is again making an argument based on the American Evangelical Protestant worldview.
I am still not impressed.
> They also ignore the fact that, while non-Jews have always been permitted to offer sacrifices, they have never at any time been required to do so.
Correct.
> American Evangelical Protestants believe in chrstianity because “the bible” (ie, their Protestant bible) tells them to.
It is easy to believe anything. I care about facts and evidence, not subjective opinions.
> Until they learn that it is G-d Who authorizes the Bible and not the other way around, they are hopeless.
Indeed.
LOL. Horse hockey. I disagree bro. So what else is new? Disagreeing with you, has been raised to an art form. Your entire post was so full of inaccuracies, I wouldn’t know where to begin, to refute them. I would never accuse you of lying, but I ABSOLUTELY will say my opinion is, that you have no understanding of spiritual issues and Christianity at all. Daniel, the wise one, AMPU, Ealgeone et al, you all have a better handle on apologetics than I do, but for the Zionist to make a statement like that, is laughable.
You must not read the threads too often on how the canon of the OT and NT were formed and which books should be in each.
Personally I have an excellent book on the history of the formation of the canon....The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce.
The very group you criticize is the first one to admit the Scriptures are inspired by God...not a church. That's the position of the Roman Catholics.
I guess HN and myself can take a break from this thread; since you are presuming to know where I’m coming from and also relieving HN from answering the question(s) I have posed.
It sounds like you are completely ignorant of what Protestants/Evangelicals think and know about the New Testament - which may explain why you are so anti-Christian. Either that or you are making up lies in order to deceive.