If the bloody sacrifice paid the full price for the forgiveness of sins, then just why is an unbloody sacrifice necessary at all????
And how can an unbloody one be efficacious for anything since scripture tells us that "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins". An unbloody sacrifice is not a sacrifice at all.
Where does it say that a bloody one needs to be followed up with unbloody ones ????
I've heard it explained as a) continuing that sacrifice through time and allowing all men to sit at the feet of Calvary, and b) applying the fruits of that sacrifice to all succeeding generations. Let's not forget, the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb was not the end of the Passover. You had to eat the lamb.
And how can an unbloody one be efficacious for anything since scripture tells us that "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins".
Right. But the unbloody sacrifice is not out there floating on its own. The bloody part of it is Calvary. That's where the unbloody part got its efficacy. And as to unbloody sacrifices not being sacrifices at all, there were cereal and wine and oil offerings in the Temple. Animals were not the only things offered. And Paul talks about a "sacrifice of praise". Anyway, what is being offered at the unbloody sacrifice *is still Christ*. He's just being offered in a different way. As I said earlier "thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek".
Where does it say that a bloody one needs to be followed up with unbloody ones ???
Well, I'm not sure that that *needed* to happen, but that's a different question. But it is suggested from, for example, Malachi 1:11:"From the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts."