The first temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 606BC. At that time some of the temple artifacts were carried off to Babylon (Dan 1:1-2). Animal sacrifices stopped. With no temple, no sacrifices.
When our anointed elder brother died on the cross for our sins, the only thing changed in the commandments is the sacrifice, we no longer need animals blood to take to the alter and pay for our sins when they crucified the son of god his blood paid for all our sins, and we no longer have to go to a priest and confess our sins, through the sacrifice of the blood of our lamb, yhwh the son ,we now have access to the heavenly father, so we can talk to the almighty god in truth and in spirit you just have to believe in him because when you accept the son you have the father automatically, if you don't understand just send me an e-mail @ .Monicalordfeel@yahoo.Com And maby i can explain it a little better ok love you k.I.T.
In the year 70 when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus.
Hey, Love! I agree with you 100%. I took God up on his offer for me to follow Jesus 52 years ago. However, I think that the sacrifices continued in the Temple until it was destroyed in 70 AD. Even though the veil protecting the entrance to the Holy of Holies was ripped at the crucifixion, they probably found a way to continue the sacrifices; it was an important part of their worship. The Bible does not say, nor does any commentary I have found say that sacrifices stopped when Jesus was crucified.
Harry is correct in his answer of "70 CE", as this is when the Second Temple was destroyed.
It is important to note that THIS is the key reason Jews no longer offer animal sacrifices. It has NOTHING to do with Jesus, as Christians would like to think.
To understand why this is, you need to understand Jewish law - both written and oral - and understand it from a Jewish perspective. The Christian take on the matter is completely different, and thus the end result is as well.
The short answer is that animal sacrifice is required to be offered in the Temple, which is no longer standing. Thus, such sacrifices are no longer offered.
The more complicated answer involves understanding atonement for sin according to the Law. Animal sacrifice was NOT the only way to atone for sin under the Law (a law which still stands, mind you, but that only ever applied to the Jews). There are other offerings listed in scripture, such as flour. That aside, however, Hosea 6:6 puts it best: "For I desire goodness, not sacrifice; Obedience to God, rather than burnt offerings." (JPS Tanakh)
As an Orthodox Rabbi explained to me, the idea of penalties is primarily to deter people from doing the wrong thing to begin with. Ideally, God would rather people did the right thing from the start, and not need to atone. Regardless, such matters only apply to Jews, and not to anyone else. The Law was only ever for the Jews. Gentiles need not worry about it.
Further, it's important to understand that blood sacrifices were only valid for the person who had committed the sin, and only for the sin in question - NOT "all sin for all time". There are different penalties for intentional and unintentional sins, and at no point in Judaism is human sacrifice accepted. To suggest that he is a "sacrificial lamb" displays gross ignorance of what is actually required of such a sacrifice.
For a start, such a sacrifice must be administered by a Priest (Leviticus, chapters 1 to 7), in the Temple, whereas Jesus was put to death by Roman soldiers - and certainly not within the Temple.
The blood of such a sacrifice had to be sprinkled by said Priest on the sanctuary's veil, and on the altar. This did not occur at Jesus' crucifixion.
The animal in question, for this type (i.e. sin) of sacrifice, needed to be a GOAT, not a lamb. It was a goat per household - not per species. That is to say, even IF Jesus had been a goat, and all the other requirements had been met, his "sacrifice" would have only covered those in one household, not the universe through all time.
Further, the goat had to be without blemish; perfect. Yet, Christianity teaches that Jesus was beaten and bloody by the time he got to be crucified. This is NOT "without blemish". Even ignoring that, being Jewish, he had been circumcised - that leaves a scar, so he *still* wasn't "without blemish".
The Paschal Lamb was NOT for sin offering. This is another matter entirely.
This is just some of the reasoning behind Jews' rejection of the Christian teachings regarding Jesus. His death is completely unrelated to the fact that Jews no longer offer animal sacrifices today.
According to the Jewish religion, the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem and the exile with all its suffering was due to the sins of the nation especially the sin of hate for no good reason. This did not stop the Jewish people from remaining the chosen people, because God's decisions are eternal. Also the Land of Israel is still the Promised Land and the return to Zion is guaranteed by divine decree. As for the Jewish version of the historical Jesus, there is a complete disagreement with the Christian version. For instance in the Jewish (Talmudic) version Jesus was born about in 100 BC and was a student of the head of the Synod, Jehoshua ben Perachja. Because of the persecution of the Rabbis by king Alexander Jannai, Jesus and his master fled to Egypt. On the way something went wrong in the relation between the two and did not improve later on. The blame for this the Talmud puts not on Jesus but on Jehoshua ben Perachja. Note that the Christian system of year dating was introduced by a monk called Dyonysius Exiguus who arbitrarily fixed the year of the consulate of Flavius Probus as AD 525.
DeaconKW said, "I never tied the cessation of sacrifices to Christianity."
I never said you did. :|
Other people asked questions on similar topics, check out the answers they received:
Other people asked questions on various topics, and are still waiting for answer. Would be great if you can take a sec and answer them