The same sacrifice, no? The priest, from my understanding, was a point-man called on to carry out the sacrifice and officiate temple dealings. But was the high priest exempted from the sacrificial atonement he offered?But my first counter-counter-question would be: who mediated for the priest under the Mosaic laws?
Messiah.And my second counter-counter-question would be: who mediated for the Chinese, and for the Native Americans, and the Norwegians (etc.) at that time?
Of course, I don't believe the Mosaic sacricifial system did anything more than point to a spiritual reality. You know the type/anti-type spiel. Several members of this board believe Christ's sacrifice atoned for the sins of all people, in all cultures and times the world over. I'm currently undecided on this.
Because these "revealed" texts can all be tested. There's an entire field of academic study which does this very thing. You partake in this field yourself, if I'm not mistaken.And what of that which the writer of the Qur'an has "revealed" to us? Or that which the writer of the Urantia Book has "revealed" to us?
I read more philosophy than any other topic and it's a great interest to me. However, the pursuit sometimes strikes me as awfully egocentric and presumptuous - though not in all cases. Prentending we can rationalize the mind of God is a silly and somewhat dangerous obsession. It might be more fruitful to look at the various claims of religious people and see if any of them match reality. You hold that Torah is more inspired than Qur'an, right?If we cannot philosophically vet the content of "scripture," how are we to responsibly place ourselves under its direction and invest into its authority?