Maybe the crucifixion was not a sacrifice

[Thomas]

The sheep being led to slaughter would be eaten or sold by the family, or maybe given to someone, but not as a sacrifice for sins.

The Passover Sacrifice' is a ritual slaughter within the context of a religion to commemorate a specific event – the blood of the lamb marking a protective sign to be spared the plague visited upon Egypt.

It's a sacrifice, in this instance a peace offering – to stay the hand of the avenging angel – rather than sin offering.

 

[Longfellow]

The Passover Sacrifice' is a ritual slaughter within the context of a religion to commemorate a specific event – the blood of the lamb marking a protective sign to be spared the plague visited upon Egypt.

It's a sacrifice, in this instance a peace offering – to stay the hand of the avenging angel – rather than sin offering.

I didn't say that it was not what anyone would call a "sacrifice." That is not relevant to what that discussion was about. That conversation was about this:

Well, if they could have had the wool, milk, or meat, but now they cannot, they are giving that up - if Sacrifice.
Although the Passover lamb was the feast which they were partaking in? Which I guess is what you are getting at.
I too have trouble understanding the role of sacrifices and how they evolved, and how the Crucifixion fits in.

 

[wil]

It might say or imply that it was a sacrifice in the sense of killing and offering to God, or killing in a manner prescribed by God, but not as giving up something.

For me there is history...the facts of what happened, or what is purported to have happened or what the powers that be have witten down and is accepted as what happened.

People argue as to what actually occurred.

And then there is the result of what occurred...how what happened or the result was interpreted then....and there is how it is interpreted now.

And then there is "you may have meant it for evil but G!d meant (or converted it to) good.

Then there are various metaphysical interpretations of the incident, and the aftermath.

Depending on your belief, or current belief these may all change and evolve.

 

[Longfellow]

For me there is history...the facts of what happened, or what is purported to have happened or what the powers that be have witten down and is accepted as what happened.

People argue as to what actually occurred.

And then there is the result of what occurred...how what happened or the result was interpreted then....and there is how it is interpreted now.

And then there is "you may have meant it for evil but G!d meant (or converted it to) good.

Then there are various metaphysical interpretations of the incident, and the aftermath.

Depending on your belief, or current belief these may all change and evolve.

I’m talking strictly about what happens in the NT story, regardless of whether any of it actually happened or not.

I looked again at Hebrews and it does seem to be saying that the crucifixion was a sacrifice for sins, contrary to what I was saying.