ANIMAL SACRIFICES to resume FOR US in the future!

[notuptome]

The passage in Zech 14 places Christ on His throne in Jerusalem during the Millennial Kingdom. The sacrifices in Zech 14 are not for atonement of sin but a symbolic sacrifice to recall the sacrifice of Christ. To journey to Jerusalem to sacrifice is an exercise of obedience not for redemption.

All this sets up an interesting set of actions that will result in the final rebellion of mankind and bring about the final great white throne judgment.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Locutus]

Zech 14 is already fulfilled in Christ.

 

[PennEd]

Since NONE of the animal sacrifices pre Christ EVER removed a SINGLE sin, but was instead intended to be a model of the ONLY Sacrifice that could take away sin, why is it so outlandish to believe that millennial animal sacrifices are performed to COMMEMORATE the ONLY Sacrifice that takes away sin?

 

[Nehemiah6]

And, we will participate in these activities as fellow Israelite participants in the covenants between God and Israel.

This statement is sufficient justification to maintain a clear distinction between future redeemed and restored Israel and the Church. "We" is the Church, and for the Church there is no participation in what future Israel does or does not do. As to the saved nations which will surround Israel at that time, once again the Church will be distinct from those nations and will be in its eternal home -- the New Jerusalem.

 

[Locutus]

That's just poor apologetics for a failed theology ED.

All the physical/natural things of Israel including the nation itself where are shadows of the reality - once the spiritual came with Christ there is no purpose or need for the physical as Paul stated:

1 Cor 15:46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.

The order, natural ----> spiritual

What the op is saying is, natural ----> spiritual -----> natural.

 

[Musicus]

Hello friends,

It appears we have a dozen Scripturally-grounded reasons which jointly confirm that animal sacrifices will (in the future) be resumed in conjunction with the full restoration of Priestly/Levitical duties. And, we will participate in these activities as fellow Israelite participants in the covenants between God and Israel. Most of us Christians are unaware of our future destiny in Israel; I hope this thread begins (in at least some small way) the process of correcting this unfortunate circumstance.

1. A. Dt. 30:1-8 is not yet fulfilled.
B. Dt. 30:1-8 guarantees the restoration of priestly/Levitical/sacrificial Torah-obedience.
C. Priestly/Levitical/sacrificial Torah-obedience will occur in the future.

2. A. Eze. 40-47 is not yet fulfilled.
B. Eze. 40-47 guarantees the restoration of priestly/Levitical/sacrificial activity.
C. Priestly/Levitical/sacrificial activity will occur in the future.

3. A. Jer. 33:20-22 is not yet fulfilled.
B. Jer. 33:20-22 guarantees the restoration of priestly/Levitical/sacrificial Torah-obedience.
C. Priestly/Levitical/sacrificial Torah-obedience will occur in the future.

4. A. Zec. 14 guarantees future GLOBAL participation in the sacrifice-laden feast of Sukkot (with punishment upon the nations who do not participate).
B. Therefore, global participation in sacrifice-laden feasts will occur in the future, and it will be required, and it will be good to obey, and it will be bad to disobey.

5. A. Mal. 3:1-4 guarantees that the Messiah will RESTORE the covenant with Levi, complete with sacrifices to be offered again in the future.
B. We should not oppose what the Messiah will come to restore in the forthcoming kingdom rule.

6. A. Is. 66 guarantees future restoration of Levitical/priestly/sacrificial activities associated with new moon and Sabbath observance.
B. We should not oppose what Isaiah guarantees will occur in the future.

7.A. The Old Covenant is READY (Gr. "engoos", Heb. 8:13) to disappear.
B. That which is ready to disappear has NOT yet disappeared (from the meaning of "engoos").
C. The Old Covenant was still in force (as of the New-Covenant-era time of the writing of Hebrews) (from B).
D. The inauguration of the New Covenant does NOT entail termination of the Old Covenant (from C).
E. Old Covenant Levitical/priestly/sacrificial activities are good and proper to persist into the New Covenant era (from D).

8. A. Many New-Covenant-era priests were disciples of the Messiah (Ac. 6:7).
B. Priests perform sacrificial/priestly/Levitical duties.
C. Priestly sacrificial/Levitical duties are acceptable in the New-Covenant-era (from A and B).

9. A. Thousands of first-century disciples were zealous for Torah (Ac. 21:20).
B. Torah-obedience requires sacrificial/priestly/Levitical duties (when performed properly).
C. Thousands of first-century disciples were zealous for Torah-obedient sacrificial/priestly/Levitical activity.
D. These disciples encouraged Paul (and Paul agreed!) to condone a vow (evidently the sacrifice-laden Nazirite vow) for the purpose of publicly affirming that Paul likewise walked orderly according to the Torah.
E. Sacrifices are, thus, affirmed as a valid ongoing New-Covenant-era practice.


10. A. Sabbath Torah is (present tense!) a shadow of the substance in Christ (Col. 2:16-17).
B. Col. 2 was written after the inauguration of the New-Covenant era.
C. Col. 2 is, thus, evidence that Sabbath Torah (which, of course, includes associated sacrificial activity when properly performed) is an ONGOING FUNCTIONING SHADOW which CONTINUES to point to the substance in Christ.

11. A. Christians are included as fellow Israelites who partake in the Torah-laden covenants between YHVH and Israel (Eph. 2).
B. The covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New) are all still in force, and we Christians partake in these covenants (plural! Eph. 2:12).
C. The covenants entail Levitical/priestly/sacrificial activity when properly performed.
D. Thus, we Christians should condone the proper restoration and participation in the Levitical/priestly/sacrificial activities associated with the Torah-laden covenants in which we participate.

12. A. Israelites will again participate in Levitical/priestly/sacrificial activity when they return from ALL the countries to which they have been scattered (Eze. 20:30-44).
B. This return has not yet occurred.
C. Animal sacrifices will occur in the future (from A and B).
D. We Christians are included as fellow Israelite participants in the covenants between YHVH and Israel (e.g., Jer. 31).
E. Thus, we are Israelites who will participate in the restoration of animal sacrifices in the future.


CONCLUSION: We appear to have a dozen (I could list many more!) Scripturally-grounded lines of reasoning which jointly confirm that Levitical/priestly/sacrificial activity is good and proper and forthcoming.

Yes, sin offerings point to the Lamb of God (Jesus) who is the ultimate sin-offering on our behalf. But this is no excuse to terminate the ONGOING SHADOW FUNCTION authorized by Scripture, affirmed by Scripture, and guaranteed (in Scripture) to properly occur in the future, just as it also properly occurred even AFTER the inauguration of the New Covenant in the first century.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong on all 12 arguments. I'm open to correction from any better-justified viewpoint.

If you agree with my 12 arguments, please let me know, because that would be encouraging to me.

If you disagree, please help me understand:
1. Which specific premise(s) in my 12 arguments do you reject (and why)?
2. Which Scriptural passage do you believe disconfirms my position (and why)?

Let's study and learn together, growing in love and grace and knowledge in our Lord Jesus Christ.

blessings to you all...


​

I'll give it a go. I'm not going through all of these right now, don't really see a need, but here's what I see going on in #1. Moses is reciting the covenant shortly after the exodus. In Deut 29:18 he starts to describe what will happen if they (the Israelites) break the covenant. In ch. 30 he describes them crying out to God and God forgiving them, restoration, etc. It already happened, many times. Each time one of the prophets said Israel was going to break the covenant they did, then cried out to God and God restored everything. All in the past.

If you want to go through all 12 of your examples, sure, but in the end there is no further need for animal sacrifices and such, because of the work Jesus did on the cross. That's why it's called a new covenant, right?

 

[Ezekiel8]

Well whether or not anyone thinks it a good thing or a bad thing, I would just point out again that animal sacrifice still goes on actually. I guess it is kind of a simpleton's argument, but basically you can't really resume something that never actually stopped.

 

[Locutus]

This statement is sufficient justification to maintain a clear distinction between future redeemed and restored Israel and the Church. "We" is the Church, and for the Church there is no participation in what future Israel does or does not do. As to the saved nations which will surround Israel at that time, once again the Church will be distinct from those nations and will be in its eternal home -- the New Jerusalem.

There is no "future" redeemed Israel:

Isa 65:15 “You will leave your name for a curse to My chosen ones, And the Lord GOD will slay you. But My servants will be called by another name.

 

[Nehemiah6]

That's just poor apologetics for a failed theology ED.

All the physical/natural things of Israel including the nation itself where are shadows of the reality - once the spiritual came with Christ there is no purpose or need for the physical as Paul stated:

When are you going to come to grips with THE FACT that the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants have not be totally fulfilled, and they must be fulfilled since they are God's covenants. You would like to simply brush away what God has revealed about the future redemption and restoration of Israel, but that is just fantasy.

 

[BibleGuy]

A Hebrew Roots person who forgot to read the New Testament! This is utter bunk! It means Jesus sacrifice was for not! I can’t believe you post a bunch of the ceremonial laws from the OT, and somehow conclude that animal sacrifices have to be made although Christ changed all that. We changed from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant.

So, just one chapter covers this, I’m posting it for you. However, I highly recommend you read the entire NT through, and see what it actually says. Here is a taste. The Church is the New Covenant, no special dispensation for the Jews, no land for the Jews, since they were taken away first for idolatry, and then for not recognizing the Messiah. And wherever you think Herod’s temple was, under the Dome of the Rock, or elsewhere it is NOT God’s plan to sacrifice animals. That is over and done with. The temple was razed, the geological records burned, Jesus is the Messiah, our High Priest and the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He has made the ONLY sacrifice we need - on the cross! There is no need for sacrifices ever. I do not thing the OP could even be saved to write this. I hope he will stay around and read the posts and find Jesus, the “author and finisher of our faith,” as Hebrews 12:1-2 says!

“For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.5 Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,
“Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
but a body have you prepared for me;
6 in burnt offerings and sin offerings
you have taken no pleasure.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’”

8 When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), 9 then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
15 And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,”

17 then he adds,
“I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”

18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
The Full Assurance of Faith

19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” Hebrews 10:1-35

Hello Angela,

Nice to meet you.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Thank you for sharing Scripture too. And I agree with every Scripture you cited.

I agree with every Scripture in ALL the Bible.

That's why I also agree with the prophets which guarantee restoration of future animal sacrifices.

You gave us no reason to disagree with the yet-unfulfilled-prophecies of the prophets.

So, you haven't really justified your position against mine.

And, am I a "Hebrew Roots" person? Answer: I am a BIBLEGUY! I go with the Bible.

Moreover, let's be nice...and stop accusing of me of things you don't even know. I've read the New Testament MANY times. And I've thoroughly documented my position in hundreds of pages of text consistent with BOTH testaments. So it's quite silly of you to suppose I "forgot to read the New Testament".

Hmmm....you're not showing signs of being a genuine truth-seeker. Please be careful...for your own sake.

I know it's stressful when people challenge you! But that's ok. It's part of the growth process. Let's take a deep breath and settle down and focus on the evidence at hand.

Now, I AGREE Jesus' sacrifice is the ultimate sacrifice. So stop implying my position entails that Jesus' sacrifice was for naught.

And:

1. Paul condoned sacrificial activity AFTER his conversion (Ac. 21).
2. Jesus condoned sacrificial activity during his ministry, and His teachings APPLY to ALL DISCIPLES (Mt. 28:20)
3. Thousands of 1st-century disciples had NO PROBLEM participating in sacrificial activity (Ac. 21)
4. MANY disciples were sacrifice-performing priests even AFTER the resurrection (Ac. 6).

So, it's clear that YOU have a problem with the idea of ongoing animal sacrifices.

But Scripture is OK with it.

In fact, Heb. 8:13 confirms that the Old Covenant is READY to pass away (implying it had not yet passed away as of the New-Covenant-era time of the writing of the book of Hebrews.)

Therefore, your claim that we changed from Old Covenant to New Covenant is incorrect. Rather, BOTH covenants now function simultaneously, and neither is presently terminated (as I've shown).

You wrote: "The Church is the New Covenant."

My response: ??? The "church" is a people-group. The New Covenant is an agreement between God and ISRAEL (Jer. 31).

Let's be careful in our thinking.

You wrote: "...

it is NOT God’s plan to sacrifice animals​

"

My response: So God was just joking in Zec. 14 and Eze. 40-47 and Dt. 30:1-8 and Jer. 33 and Mal. 3 regarding the animal sacrifices to occur in that future time?

Of course not! Please adjust your position to be consistent with Scripture.

You wrote: "

I hope he will stay around and read the posts and find Jesus​

"

My response: Are you writing to me? Or to someone else?

And, I hope you learn that Jesus comes to rebuild the temple (Zec. 6:12-13) which should be a house of prayer for all nations (Mk. 11:17) in which offerings and sacrifices on the altar are acceptable (Is. 56:7) when Jesus RESTORES the sacrifice-performing duties of the ongoing covenant with Levi (Mal. 3:1-4).

You wrote: "

There is no need for sacrifices ever."

My response: Please take the time to look up the Scriptures I've cited which disconfirm your claim.

Ok...hope to hear from you.

blessings....
​

 

[Locutus]

Both covenants were fulfilled in Christ:

Gal 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ.

 

[PennEd]

That's just poor apologetics for a failed theology ED.

All the physical/natural things of Israel including the nation itself where are shadows of the reality - once the spiritual came with Christ there is no purpose or need for the physical as Paul stated:

1 Cor 15:46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.

The order, natural ----> spiritual

What the op is saying is, natural ----> spiritual -----> natural.

No. I fully understand your position. I simply disagree with it.
There are quite a few believers here that have your same view on the Spiritual vs. Physical, and literal vs. allegorical. Most of whom I consider awesome, loving, mature brothers and sisters in Christ.
I'm pretty sure I won't convince them of my beliefs, and I'm equally sure they won't convince me of theirs.

And I think that's ok. My love for my Church family doesn't hinge on the millennial Kingdom, or eschatological doctrines. It hinges on the fact that we all trust in Jesus.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Both covenants were fulfilled in Christ:

I said "TOTALLY fulfilled". They have been partially fulfilled but God does not take half-measures. It is quite clear that you simply do not bother with the OT prophecies since they would overturn your false ideas about what has been fulfilled and what has not. So why don't you start with Ezekiel and tell us when those prophecies were fulfilled?

 

[Angela53510]

The passage in Zech 14 places Christ on His throne in Jerusalem during the Millennial Kingdom. The sacrifices in Zech 14 are not for atonement of sin but a symbolic sacrifice to recall the sacrifice of Christ. To journey to Jerusalem to sacrifice is an exercise of obedience not for redemption.

All this sets up an interesting set of actions that will result in the final rebellion of mankind and bring about the final great white throne judgment.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Just curious about this verse, in Zechariah 14.

’Even Judah will fight at Jerusalem. And the wealth of all the surrounding nations shall be collected, gold, silver, and garments in great abundance. 15 And a plague like this plague shall fall on the horses, the mules, the camels, the donkeys, and whatever beasts may be in those camps.” Zech. 14:14-15[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
So, basically a plague on the horses, mules, camels, donkeys and beasts. How many armies today rely on these animals for transportation? Well, I agree on a spy mission into the desert, maybe some horses and camels. But face it, drones take the place of those missions these days.

And what will happen to all the tanks, guns, artillery, jets, drones, to say nothing of the wall Israel has built? Surely those were important enough to mention, because Judah is going to fight at Jerusalem. And guns/tanks/airplanes etc are not generally destroyed by a plague, anyway!

Oh wait, the temple records were destroyed in 70 AD by the Romans when the temple was burned to the ground, and taken apart rock by rock, just as Jesus said it was. So no Judah helping Jerusalem. And Jerusalem is actual within ancient Judah, say 3500 years ago, so not sure what this means!

Think for a minute! Doesn’t it make sense Zechariah was talking about the attack by Vespasian and then Titus, from 66-70 AD. When the Romans destroyed most of the city, and dispersed the Jews forever? You know, back when horses, mules, camels, donkeys and “whatever beasts” the armies were fighting with.

I am only a partial preterist, because I do not believe Jesus has returned. But, Zechariah 14 has certainly been fulfilled. This simply could not be modern times, because no one fights with animals. If this was supposed to be 2000 years in the future, surely some mystical symbols would have been used. You know “and rocks that turned to fire fell to the ground from the sky, from strange shiny, large birds.” And “large wagons mounted with weapons of terrible destruction wiped out the people, the 4th (or is it 5th?) temple. Or maybe “And from the sky, a huge explosion, in the shape of a mushroom wiped every building and every person into dust.”

So, you know, a prophecy from God about these so called dispensatonal last days! Instead, we get prophecies which happened within a generation of the death and resurrection of Jesus. You know, like Jesus says in Matt 24.

’Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. 2 But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” Matt 24:1-2 [FONT=&quot]

The problem with dispensationalists, besides being paranoid fear mongers, is they simply don’t read the Bible in context. So, NO SACRIFICES, NO TRIBULATION and NO ENDTIME WAR in modern Israel. (OK, I take that back. Modern Israel, which is not heir to the promises in the OT, does have a lot of wars, although not the kind dispensationalists are predicting.)

Yikes! So much bad hermeneutics and theology![/FONT]

 

[Locutus]

In fact, Heb. 8:13 confirms that the Old Covenant is READY to pass away (implying it had not yet passed away as of the New-Covenant-era time of the writing of the book of Hebrews.)

Therefore, your claim that we changed from Old Covenant to New Covenant is incorrect. Rather, BOTH covenants now function simultaneously, and neither is presently terminated (as I've shown).

You've shown nothing other than a willingness to misappropriate scripture.

When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

So according to you ready to means 1970 years and counting.

Once someone starts redefining the meaning of words it should indicate to all that further discussion is a total waste of time and will prove to be totally fruitless.

 

[BibleGuy]

You are off to a bad start with all the premises in the opening post - for a start all the OT came to an end in the 1st century AD according to Hebrews:

Heb 8:13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

Heb 9:1 Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary.

What you are trying to state is that those 1st covenant regulations that were made obsolete somehow become un-obsolete

Hello, the very passage you quoted SUPPORTS my position:

1. The Old Covenant (not OT!) is READY (Gr. "engoos", Heb. 8:13) to disappear.
2. If something is ready to disappear, then it did NOT yet disappear.
3. The Old Covenant did NOT yet disappear as of the New-Covenant-era time of the writing of the book of Hebrews.
4. The Old Covenant and New Covenant now function simultaneously.

WHICH OF THESE FOUR PREMISES DO YOU REJECT? AND WHY?

Unless you give us a good answer, the force of my Scripturally-grounded reasoning stands.

AND, it follows that we should not be surprised to see Paul CONDONING sacrificial activity (Ac. 21) AFTER his conversion.

We should not be surprised to see thousands of 1st-century disciples CONDONING sacrificial activity (Ac. 21) AFTER the resurrection.

We should not be surprised to see that MANY disciples were sacrifice-performing priests (Ac. 6) AFTER the resurrection.

We are not surprised to see that the SHADOW-FUNCTION of the law persists (present tense in Col. 2:17) into the New-Covenant era.

CONCLUSION: I just cited many passages which confirm that the OT did NOT come to an end in the first century.

In fact, Heb. 8:13 confirms just the opposite! It is READY to disappear (but it has NOT yet disappeared).

Can you engage the actual substance of my position stated here?

Thanks...

 

[Depleted]

You've shown nothing other than a willingness to misappropriate scripture.

When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

So according to you ready to means 1970 years and counting.

Once someone starts redefining the meaning of words it should indicate to all that further discussion is a total waste of time and will prove to be totally fruitless.

A covenant is a contract/an agreement. Two sides promise to fulfill their part in it for some benefit.

The OT was nullified because one side did not live up to the agreement. Man. God lived up to his side. Therefore he made the same covenant yet again, but this time the two sides were God and Jesus, (who is God.) Both sides of the covenant are fulfilled. The benefits are begin delivered and will be delivered more later/at the end.

Just clarifying because somehow when you say it was nullified, it sounds like the Lord reneged on his contract. He didn't. WE did!

 

[BibleGuy]

You've shown nothing other than a willingness to misappropriate scripture.

When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

So according to you ready to means 1970 years and counting.

Once someone starts redefining the meaning of words it should indicate to all that further discussion is a total waste of time and will prove to be totally fruitless.

I see what you're thinking...but it's wrong.

Here's why:

The time of the words of the prophecy of the book of Revelation is READY (Gr. "engoos", Rev. 22:10).

But here we are, some 2000 years later, and it has STILL NOT HAPPENED!

CONCLUSION: Something can be "ENGOOS" (ready) to occur, YET NOT OCCUR FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS LATER!

I have NOT redefined "engoos".

Rather, I have EMPLOYED the Scripturally authorized usage of that very term in consistent fashion.

Thus, your accusation of "redefining the meaning of words" fails.

See my point?

Rev. 22:10 is "engoos", but it has been a few thousand years, and it has still not happened.

Likewise, the disappearance of the Old Covenant is "engoos", but it has been a few thousand years, and it has still not happened.

That's why your objection in this post fails.

Hope you can adjust your viewpoint to account for this fact.

best...

 

[Locutus]

A covenant is a contract/an agreement. Two sides promise to fulfill their part in it for some benefit.

The OT was nullified because one side did not live up to the agreement. Man. God lived up to his side. Therefore he made the same covenant yet again, but this time the two sides were God and Jesus, (who is God.) Both sides of the covenant are fulfilled. The benefits are begin delivered and will be delivered more later/at the end.

Just clarifying because somehow when you say it was nullified, it sounds like the Lord reneged on his contract. He didn't. WE did!

The old is fulfilled, I never stated it was nullified.

If you are looking for some future fulfillment of the old then you have misunderstood what Hebrews stated.

Something does not pass away and become obsolete only to be recalled hundreds of years later.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Well whether or not anyone thinks it a good thing or a bad thing, I would just point out again that animal sacrifice still goes on actually. I guess it is kind of a simpleton's argument, but basically you can't really resume something that never actually stopped.

Do you mean Shechita?