Yes, though micro-organisms are not listed as acceptible.Does the Torah specify what kind of organisms you're supposed to sacrifice? If not, why not sacrifice a few million micro organisms by spilling a bit of antibiotic over a surface .
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yes, though micro-organisms are not listed as acceptible.Does the Torah specify what kind of organisms you're supposed to sacrifice? If not, why not sacrifice a few million micro organisms by spilling a bit of antibiotic over a surface .
Abram said:Then teach me! Tell me why they don't sacrifice anymore. I have a open mind and would really love to know. Being that RF is for religious education, right!
The point I made was trying to make is that Jesus was the final sacrifice, the entire reason the OT was inspired.
So Booku why don't they sacrifice any more?
</IMG>
Abram said:Then teach me! Tell me why they don't sacrifice anymore. I have a open mind and would really love to know. Being that RF is for religious education, right!
The point I made was trying to make is that Jesus was the final sacrifice, the entire reason the OT was inspired.
So Booku why don't they sacrifice any more?
</IMG>
I did read them. Because I really want to know. What about before Mt. Sinai? Thats why I asked about Cain and Abel and Noah. The Bible talks about them sacrificing before the temple was even known.Booko said:evarael listed three sites to go find out...why not start there?
Abram said:I did read them. Because I really want to know. What about before Mt. Sinai? Thats why I asked about Cain and Abel and Noah. The Bible talks about them sacrificing before the temple was even known.
I don't agree with "AskMoses" about this. The temple is a weak answer to a tough question that's always bounced around in my head when I read the OT. I just never found the right way to ask.
The temple had nothing to do with the act of sacrifice itself. The sacrifice was a result of sin. Something had to die for our sins.
Where does the Bible say that? If it could be pointed out, it would put this question to rest. I think the Bible is the infallible word of God, so I'm easy to please. I love scripture. Point me to the spot. Someone said Isaiah but I couldnt find it?beckysoup61 said:It is not a weak answer, if you want more, ask one of our Jewish friends. The Jews beleive that they now need a temple in order to sacrifice.
You have made it very clear you are not Jewish, thus I would not expect you to agree with Jewish theology.I don't agree with "AskMoses" about this.
It is the answer. 'Weak' is an opinion. If you have another question, feel free to state it.The temple is a weak answer to a tough question
What is your question or, for that matter, your sources?The temple had nothing to do with the act of sacrifice itself. The sacrifice was a result of sin. Something had to die for our sins.
Fair enough. This has always been a question that I wanted a answer to. Most the time I spend here I enjoy debating things I know both sides to. Now after all the music, homosexual, is Jesus God, evolution threads, finally a question I have no clue about.evearael said:You have made it very clear you are not Jewish, thus I would not expect you to agree with Jewish theology.
It is the answer. 'Weak' is an opinion. If you have another question, feel free to state it.
What is your question or, for that matter, your sources?
I have no need for proslytizing. Later.I will continue to use this question to teach Jesus to Jews
sandy whitelinger said:Does this mean that all of the Jewish people since the destruction of the Temple are unsaved?
Now your being rude because of a valid question I had to find the answer to myself.I never called you unsaved, and no I don't want to go to war so you could destroy meAlanGurvey said:wow your mind is baffling, just because we don't carry out a "positive" (do an action) commandment, does not necessarily mean that we are "unsaved" ,our G-d weighs our over all actions and then decides if we attain salvation or not, unlike your poor misconception of the divine
Dont tempt me to A war of the Talmud, your inability to interpret statements will destroy you!
Actually you both are being a bit immature. Abram, he was referring to Sandy Whitelinger, not you if you noticed he quoted her in his post and refereed to Sandy as sophmoric.Abram said:Now your being rude because of a valid question I had to find the answer to myself. You call me a Sophomoric which I had to look up. BTW you spelt it wrong. I never called you unsaved, and no I don't want to go to war so you could destroy me
All I wanted was a solid answer.
A war of words , not one of atomics or strategic bombing, the easy answer is..Abram said:Now your being rude because of a valid question I had to find the answer to myself. You call me a Sophomoric which I had to look up. BTW you spelt it wrong. I never called you unsaved, and no I don't want to go to war so you could destroy me
All I wanted was a solid answer.
The better answer is Duet 12:13,14.AlanGurvey said:A war of the words Dr.Science, not one of atomics or strategic bombing, the easy answer is..
NO TEMPLE, NO SACRIFICES
By the way the statement was aimed at sw :areyoucra
Still being rude!beckysoup61 said:Actually you both are being a bit immature. Abram, he was referring to Sandy Whitelinger, not you if you noticed he quoted her in his post and refereed to Sandy as sophmoric.
'Abram said:Still being rude!
:sorry1: Not you! He was still being rude to Sandy. Thats it, nothing more or less.beckysoup61 said:'
Excuse me? I was pointing out your mistake and how you shouldn't be offended with AlanGurvey. Alan was talking to Sandy not you.