St.Matt. 27:50-51 recounts Christ's death and at that moment, the Temple veil splitting into.

Verse 50 "And Jesus again crying with a loud voice, yeilded up the ghost. 51 And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent."

Evidently there exists today on Mount Calvary a deep cleft about 20 feet wide that experts say could not be the result of a natural earthquake becasue of the way the rocks were split. Had it been an ordinary earthquake the rock would have split at its weakest part, but on the contrary, the rock was rent obliquely, a most unnatural manner.

Here's the answer to the question from Rabbi Tzvi Freeman of Chabad, the most influential Hassidic sect:

And the Torah prescribes a whole slew of sacrifices to be made in the Tabernacle in the desert, and then later in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. And guess what? In our prayers, for the past 2,000 years, weve been asking for G-d to let us rebuild that Temple so that we can start doing those sacrifices, just like He asked us to. 

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2942/jewish/Animal-Sacrifices.htm

Rabbi Freeman is an authority on Judaism and Jewish law.

I don't think it is proper (or honest) to make up stuff about other people's religions.

If you want to know about Judaism, don't ask a Christian who believes that his religion overrides other people's.

But if you insist that that is the proper method, why not have KFC, a Protestant, explain the Roman Catholic faith to everyone?

Oh, and I know many Muslims who have strong opinions about why Christianity is not following G-d's will correctly. After all, Islam came after Christianity and so should have the same authority over Christianity that Lula claims to have over Judaism, right?

We could talk about pre-Muhammed and post-Muhammed Christianity even though Christians don't remember changing anything in their religion at that time.

The Bible text quoted above seems a bit random. It doesn't actually say anything about ending sacrifices and has absolutely nothing to do with the destruction of the Second Temple.

In fact the text was written shortly after the construction of the Second Temple. The only relationship it has with sacrifice is that it criticises priests for not doing the sacrifices correctly.

Maybe you should try to be more to the point. Instead of quoting long, irrelevant texts you should simply quote the one or two sentences that say what you claim they say.

Chapter 1:10, 13

Chapter 2:4-6

Malachias not only prophecies that the Old Mosaic sacrifices on the Altar of the Temple would no longer be acceptable to Almighty God, but that a new sacrifice would be more pleasing.

  What follows verse 10,

is verse 11:

The "sacrifice" here is the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass and the "clean oblation" is the consecrated host, the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, the "Bread of Life", which Christ described at length in St.John 6 as being His real Body and His real Blood.

1:10 and 2:8 tells us that Almighty God is a little more than critical of the priests for not offering the sacrifices correctly.

1:10, .....I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts: and I will not receive a gift of your hand.

2:8, But you have departed out of the way, and have caused many to stumble at the law: you have made void the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts.

The entire chapter is about the priests sacrificing unhealthy animals. That's a big no-no in Jewish law.

Unhealthy (including blind or lame) animals must not be slaughtered for eating.

Since sacrifices were actually eaten by people, the priests were clearly breaking the law. Hence the admonishment.

That happened over 400 years before Jesus' birth and the destruction of the Temple. It doesn't say that sacrifices were abolished or would be one day, it doesn't say that Jews will do something wrong some 500 years later, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus or the end of the Second Temple.

The malachias (NOT a proper noun) did not prophecy that sacrifices will end, he speaks about the past, about the very event of the priests starting to sacrifice the wrong animals.

I checked the original text. Everything is in perfect tense. Hebrew has two tenses, perfect and imperfect. (Those are NOT the same as English past tense and future tense.)

Prophecies are said in either imperfect tense ("you will do" = "you shall do" = "you do", Hebrew does not differentiate) or in a surviving Assyrian imperfect tense. The latter is called "waw-consecutive".

The text you quote is in simple Hebrew perfect tense. It is not a prophecy, it speaks about events just passed.

The verb in question is הכשלתם (hikhshaltem). It derives from the root "kashal" which means "fail". It's the h-stem and means "cause to fail", here "you (pl.) caused to fail". All the other verbs are also in perfect tense, as far as I could see.

Ya, prayers in the synagogue to rebuild the Temple to offer the already abrogated sacrifices and levitical laws.

Don't these modern Rabbis read the OT prophets? According to Malachais the priests who were consecrated for the ALtar by competeant authorites who had Divine commission to exercise levitical requirements voided the Levitical covenant.

Instead of praying for the past 2,000 years for the Temple to be rebuilt so that sacrifices can be done again, they should have heeded Moses' command, that they listen to the "Prophet' God would send, whom thou shalt hear". Deut. 18:15.

But the good news is it's not too late to do that!

It helped the last time.

That's where the belief in the Messiah comes from. We believe that one day the Messiah will come and rebuild the Temple, just like the last time.

They do. But they also understand them.

Well, no, not really. By offering unfit sacrifices they _caused to fail_. But I just explained that above. I don't know where you get "voided". The word doesn't even fit grammatically (the verb is in the h-stem and "void" is simply not causative).

Either way, that was 400 years before Jesus' birth. Are you sure that sacrifices ended, per G-d's will, 400 years before Jesus' birth?

You simply ignored my response and explanation and restarted the discussion from a point before you were told. I know you like doing that. But it's still annoying.

No. We prefer praying over following false gods.

A new religion that would require me to give up reading the Bible in Hebrew just so the text can fit in with new interpretations is not for this Jew.

huh?  This is all screwed up.   First you say 2:4-6 and then go on to include up to verse 8 totally skipping context completely.

Then you make it seem as tho you are continuing but you are going back to 1:10 and 1:11 WHICH SCREAMS TO ME THAT YOU ARE QUOTING NOT FROM THE BIBLE ITSELF BUT FROM SOME OFF THE WALL RCC COMMENTARY.  

That is NOT how you put things in context Lula.  You're not making any sense. 

That's why this is so screwed up. 

You totally skipped v 9 which ends the section 2:1-9 but then go back and include Chap 1:10-11. 

Go back and read 2:7-9 and you'd see that one of the principal functions of the Levites was to teach the people (Deut 33:10-scripture interprets scripture) but they were showing partiality or favoritism in applying the law (James 2:1).  Has nothing to do with ending any sacrifices.

This is totally absured Lula. 

oh and one more thing.  Void is NOT the correct interpretation.  Mine says "you have corrupted the covenant of Levi" which makes more sense.  But I understand you would like the "void" because it fits your interpretation best.  You're way off on this Lula. 

The best thing I can show you as to how absurd this is by using scripture to show you:

"And the Jews passover was at hand and Jesus went up to Jerusalem"   John 2:13

"After this, there was a feast of the Jews and Jesus went up to Jerusalem" 5:1

""and the passover a feast of the Jews was near."  6:4

So since this was 400 years after Malachi wrote nothing was voided was it? 

I can go on and on showing you that Jesus himself was present and participating at the feasts of the Jews including going with his family when he was young.

Jesus celebrated the sacrifices.  He was in Jerusalem, as every Jewish male was to be to celebrate Passover.  He also was required to be there for the other two required feasts, Weeks (also known as Pentecost) and Tabernacles.  His mother also went up, as the custom was, to sacrifice in the temple at his birth. 

You got it. "Corrupt" would work, as it is causative. You clearly have a better translation.

KFC,

Nothing I've said is absurd.

Malachias' prophecy 1:10 and 2:8 is clear that the Old Mosaic sacrifices on the Altar of the Temple as well as the other levitical laws would no longer be acceptable to Almighty God and be voided, (or since you don't like that word, abrogated will do).  

As to the timing when Malachias' prophecy that God will not accept offering of the Old Mosaic sacrifices will be fulfilled, all you had to do was read my first sentence in the article.

As to your comments in #10,

obviously all this occurred before Christ's death on the Cross which is when I have consistently  claimed that the Old Mosaic sacrifices as well as the levitical laws, rituals, and ceremonies would end for good at the Death of Our Lord, Jesus Christ on the Cross.

Malachais' prophecy was fulfilled when God made it known at the moment of Christ's death, the Temple Veil was rent from top to bottom. The sacrifices would end being practiced for good in 70AD.

OK. Looking back at my post 4 I can see where it seems confusing. I should have made 2 separate posts.

Leauki asked:

I did that by quoting 1:10-14 and 2:4-8 and highlighting the passages.

In short, Malachias 1:10 and 2:4,8 make my case rebutting Leauki's statement that God didn't make it known that the Old Mosaic sacrifices are done for good.

kfc posts:

Yes, I did quote the prophecy of Malachias 1-4 from the Douay Rheims version.

And again, I'm sorry that post # 4 is confusing.

I went back to 1:10-11 because it pertains to the discussion in that Malachias prophecies the New Covenant sacrifice of Christ, a "clean oblation".

no that has nothing to do with your case.  There are numerous scriptures in the OT where it said without obedience sacrifices were  worthless or condemned for not treating it with respect including what you're referring to here.  It has NOTHING to do with saying or prophesying the Mosaic sacrifices are done for good.  To show you and make my case as well as Leauki's all you have to do is go here:

Without obedience, sacrifices are worthless:

1 Sam 15:22, Prov 21:3, Mark 12:33,

To the Jews condemned for not treating with respect:

1 Sam 2:29, Malachi 1:12, 1:13-14,

condemned for bringing defective and blemished including what you are using for your case:

Malachi 1:13-14

condemned for not offering:

Isa 43:23-24,

Unaccepted because of sin

 Isa 1:11,15, Isa 66:3, Hos 8:13,

Condemned for offering to idols

2 Chron 34:25, Isa 65:3,7, Ezek 20:28,31

I could go on and on.  Malachi is just another in a long list of prophets who were speaking for God about their inferior sacrifices.  Yes, one would come in the future and give a perfect sacrifice.  But Malachi's point has nothing to do with ending the Mosaic sacrifices. 

If anything Malachi was using the ability to startle and shock his audience by saying God was not stuck with the Jews.  God could and would raise up true worshipers to his name from all the nations of the world.  His cause and his great name would succeed despite the corruption of the sacrifices.  God was not saddled with Israel just as he is not saddled with any contemporary group of Christians.  God chose both groups out of mercy and grace to represent Him.  If we didn't Christ said God could call on the rocks to praise Him. 

The sacrifice of the future will be from "the rising to the setting of the sun" showing the sweep of God's success from east to west even beyond the borders of Israel. 

If anything Malachi is speaking about offerings that would be offered bigger and newer than what Israel had ever seen or imagined.  That's why Malachi wrote "My name will be great among the nations." 

That's what Malachi is exclaiming.  Not that the Mosiac sacrifices would come to an end (and they would) but the fact that the sacrifices of the future will be based on something even greater and it would involve Gentile nations from all over the world. 

That's the point of Malachi.