The Blood of Bulls & Lambs Didn't Pay For Sins

Hebrews 10:4 says:

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

That's true. But on the other hand it very clearly does not say:

"For because we now know it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins, we no longer need to sacrifice".

In fact is there a scripture anywhere in the New Testament that explicitly says: "sacrifices are done away".

Certainly Hebrews 10:4 doesn't say that sacrifices are no longer necessary, does it? It simply says. Sacrifices never paid for sins. It wasn't possible. And actually that's not really too much of a surprise is it ? Of course animal sacrifices never paid for sins. Would anyone argue that they did ?

Did God command sacrifices to be instituted so that they would pay for sins? Is that what the Old Testament says?

No, sacrifices never did pay for sin and were never intended to pay for sin. Only one thing wipes out the debt of sin, and it is not an animal sacrifice.

But arguably, just because Hebrews tells us that sacrifices never paid for sin, does not mean that the animal sacrifices were irrelevant.

Return to the start of Paul's Post Crucifixion Temple Sacrifices a Judianity website ?
© www.pauls-post-crucifixion-temple-sacrifices.info March 2006.

In Acts, a small predictable change to one "Old Testament" law about the circumcision of gentile proselytes caused massive turmoil in the predominantly Jewish first century church. Why then, isn't any comparable fuss recorded in the New Testament if most of the other Old Testament laws were "done away". Is the written Torah law really " done away" in Galatians?