The New Roman "Interfaith" Religion - the End of Animal Sacrifices

Greg

Greg

Active Member
Messages
25
Reaction score
16
Points
3
The New Roman Religion - a Rabbi Later Declared Priest, and Messiah Substitutes for Animal Sacrifices

Paul, and perhaps other Greek-educated Roman citizens (e.g. Roman Senate) who also believed in God or were open to a pseudo-monotheism, considered the religious sacrifice of animals to be obsolete.

Circumcision was an obstacle to Roman unified religion. Circumcision as a religious ritual, may also have been considered ancient by the educated (circumcision today is common for health and medical reasons, but for many it is not part of religious ritual).

The sacrifice of animals was part of both Jewish and polytheist practice. The Jewish followers of Jesus continued normal Jewish practice including sacrifice of animals. The religion of Paul was new to them, so obviously, it was not part of the whatever teachings they had received. Much of the Letters in the Bible focus on the negation of Jewish laws such as circumcision as well as the replacement of animal sacrifices with a new sacrifice that didn't involve killing of animals. The new form of sacrifice fit the Roman pattern of substitution of prior religious prayer, practice, holidays, and symbols with a new practice that unified religions in the empire.

For the Jewish people, the Rabbi, declared as priest, messiah, and lamb, is the new sacrifice.

For the polytheists, the new form of sacrifice is the body of a man (declared as image of God) rather than an animal. The sacrifices were generally eaten, and thus eating of the man (in image of God) substitutes.

Much theology was formed and built up around this, and Scripture passages of the later books after the letters, such as the Books of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, were designed to support the new theology of the new religion that ended animal sacrifices and united Jews and Greco-Romans.

Roman Unity​

Jewish laws regarding circumcision were an obstacle to unity, so the removal of circumcision also had to be worked into the new religion.

Colossians 2:11 "Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision,..."
Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, ... for you are all one"

Change in Jewish Practice​

Galatians 3:1 "O stupid Galatians!...Are you so stupid?"
Galatians 3:10 "...all who depend on works of the law are under a curse;"
Galatians 6:15 "For neither does circumcision mean anything,"
Colossians 2:11 ...you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand,...

No Animal Sacrifices​

1 Corinthians 8:1 "Now in regard to meat sacrificed to idols:...So about the eating of meat sacrificed to idols: we know that 'there is no idol in the world, and that "there is no God but one."

1 Corinthians 8:5 "...even though there are so-called gods in heaven and on earth (there are, to be sure, many 'gods' and many 'lords'),
...yet for us there is one God, the Father,"

1 Corinthians 8:7 "There are some who have been so used to idolatry up until now that, when they eat meat sacrificed to idols,..."

1 Corinthians 9:13 "Do you not know that those who perform the temple services eat (what) belongs to the temple, and those who minister at the altar share in the sacrificial offering?"

1 Corinthians 10:20 "...they sacrifice, to demons, not to God,..."
1 Thessalonians 1:9 "...you turned to God from idols..."
Hebrews 7:27 "He has no need, as did the high priests, to offer sacrifice day after day,..."

The goals was a new unification ("interfaith") religion. However, it strayed too far from monotheism and Jewish practice, and the Jewish people understandably, generally did not participate. Today, among some Christian leaders, such as Catholic bishops speaking of "Re-Judaizing Catholicism", one sees continued efforts, but I think that much more theological changes are needed. At least relations are better today.
 
Last edited:
A bit of adjustment and clarification of the above post. The main thesis is that Christian theology did not arise from actual events involving God becoming man. Rather, what became Christianity originated mainly from Roman motives for economical socio-political control of its population. The main motive was religious unification. A secondary motive may have involved the general idea of ending animal sacrifice, e.g. among the Greek-educated Roman Senate and others such as Paul. These motives may have overlapped, however the main motive remained religious unification for Roman socio-political control. Religion was a large part of Jewish culture as well as Greco-Roman culture.

So, from this primary and potentially secondary (and overlapping) motive, specific needs were discovered, and Paul's work involved addressing these needs: A unified form of sacrifice and elimination of religious circumcision.

Also, another common ground between Judaism (monotheism) and polytheism was promulgated. The substitution of the human-like Greco-Roman "god" and "sons of gods", with a human-like figure as the image of the true God (Jesus).

The use of Jesus as the new common form of sacrifice for both Jewish people and Greco-Romans, involved a story whereby not a Greco-Roman "god" "died" (and perhaps rose), but an image of the true God was sacrificed and was resurrected. Note also that the Roman church appears very aware that this fabricated story borders on blasphemy (if not actually, but perhaps not intentionally) and they are very careful to say that the Father was not on the cross. This is all part of the delicate somewhat self-contradictory theological balance that was needed as a result of pressure in the Roman empire to find common ground among monotheism (e.g. Judaism) and polytheism.

The trinity theology is also a result of this story that was developed in order to form a new Roman religion that united monotheism and polytheism.
 
Greg said:
Rather, what became Christianity originated mainly from Roman motives for economical socio-political control of its population. The main motive was religious unification. A secondary motive may have involved the general idea of ending animal sacrifice, e.g. among the Greek-educated Roman Senate and others such as Paul. These motives may have overlapped, however the main motive remained religious unification for Roman socio-political control.
Click to expand...
Well, from a purely historical standpoint, these arguments don't seem to work - they comes across as simplistic generalizations that are hard to justify once you start getting into the actual history of the period.

While it's a popular modern idea that religion exists to control the masses, this is very much a secular mindset that completely fails to appreciate that religion was present in every part of daily life. So attempts to control the masses would arguably have to always include the masses, rather than the other way around.

What we actually find in the period is that the Christian movement became ever larger and more vociferous - even militant - over the proceeding centuries before Constantine, until it basically reached a critical mass - to either embrace this relatively recent but giant religion for the good of the state, or else try to remove it and return to traditional practices for the good of the state. It was always going to be easier to go for the first option.

Additionally, I see no general push to get rid of animal sacrifices in any historical source outside of Christian writings, as it had been a staple of the Ancient Greek world since at least the Bronze Age period, and Romans were proud to consider it part of their traditions, too. Saul of Tarsus might have had that idea, but when you read his writing that concern seems like a symptom of his ideas, rather than a primary one. In other words, you have the tail wagging the dog here.

2c. :)
 
Reading the Gospels, the writers seek to show the continuity of the Jewish religion as the foundation for Christianity. Taking the Gospel of Matthew for instance, his genealogy in chapter 1 seeks to show how Jesus was the promised Messiah that came through the line of Abraham, Isaac (the child of the Promise), Jacob (Israel), and the tribe of Judah. Additionally, that the Messiah would fulfill the Davidic Covenant as the one who would remain on the throne forever.

From here, Matthew begins showing how Jesus fulfilled several Messianic prophecies/promises beginning with Isaiah 7:14 in his references in 1:21-23. Within the first two chapters alone, there are about 5 OT prophecies fulfilled by Jesus.

If we take the words of Jesus as well, He makes it clear that He is not trying to overthrow the Jewish religion per se, but has come in fulfillment of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob's promise to send a Savior and bless the nations through Him.

Paul and the writer of Hebrews as examples, who were both (if we don't believe Paul was the writer of Hebrews) strict adherents to Judaism, show throughout their own letters how Jesus was the Messiah and the fulfillment of God's covenant with Abraham. Likewise, we learn that the OT sacrifices pointed forward to Christ, the once for all sacrifice to save His people from their sins, and the Law was a guardian to bring us to Christ.

In regard to history, it's hard to say the Christian message and theology was a "balance that was needed as a result of pressure in the Roman empire to find common ground among monotheism (e.g. Judaism) and polytheism." The early Christians were harshly persecuted by Rome, yet the Jews were left alone to continue worshipping in their own manner. The early Christians were called "atheists" because they refused to believe in the false gods/goddesses of Rome, but professed one God (the God of Israel) and one Lord (the Lord Jesus Christ). The Apostles called on everyone, Jews and Gentiles, to repent and believe the gospel (that Christ died for sin in accordance with the Scriptures, was buried, and was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures). They were not trying to play the middle-man or please the Jews or Roman Empire, they were proclaiming the message of Christ as Lord. We see this in Paul's writing to the Galatians in chapter 1 verse 10, "For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ."

What is your understanding of the Trinity? Saying it is a way to unite monotheism and polytheism is inaccurate. The Bible never approaches polytheism and neither do the writings of the early church fathers or creeds that developed related to this doctrine.
 
A matter of historical note, the end of the Jewish temple sacrifice came about because of the destruction of the temple by the Romans, not because of any theological movement of religious unification or socio-political alignment between Rome and Jerusalem, quite the opposite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top