Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 94

Thread: Is there a need for a future temple?

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,239
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    I agree that they will be saved. But currently salvation is by Grace through Faith, so WHEN the Temple is built in our near future, before the Day of the Lord, they will perform a Daily Ritual of sacrifice.

    How is DAILY different than EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK? Especially when the Verse Quoted says both Daily, and Seven Days. AND it is not stated as "DAILY SACRIFICE", but rather Daily... An Offer is given Daily... You are saying the same thing, but putting PRAYER as the Daily. You use "what ifs" to verify your Daily. I use Scripture - The Lord Tells us what the Daily is. MEAT Sacrifice.

    The passage in Dan is a prophecy that is there to show us what is to come. It is relevant...

    Antichrist Stops the Daily because it is offensive to Him and because the Jews are worshiping (through the Daily) GOD the Father. He Violates the Covenant when he does this.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Clanton Alabama
    Posts
    609

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by Soldier_of_Faith View Post
    I agree that they will be saved. But currently salvation is by Grace through Faith, so WHEN the Temple is built in our near future, before the Day of the Lord, they will perform a Daily Ritual of sacrifice.

    How is DAILY different than EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK? Especially when the Verse Quoted says both Daily, and Seven Days. AND it is not stated as "DAILY SACRIFICE", but rather Daily... An Offer is given Daily... You are saying the same thing, but putting PRAYER as the Daily. You use "what ifs" to verify your Daily. I use Scripture - The Lord Tells us what the Daily is. MEAT Sacrifice.

    The passage in Dan is a prophecy that is there to show us what is to come. It is relevant...

    Antichrist Stops the Daily because it is offensive to Him and because the Jews are worshiping (through the Daily) GOD the Father. He Violates the Covenant when he does this.
    If you reread my original post on this I map it out in detail. The phrase 2300 DAYS was not used, it was 2300 DUSKS and DAWNS, now add that up, its really 1150 Days because there is ONE DUSK and ONE DAWN in each Day. . There is a Required Prayer/Oblation unto God TWICE DAILY. Amen.

    As per your verse in Duteronomy, why would you think a SACRIFICE is the same as an OBLATION? One is a Prayer/honoring God, the other is a ritual Sacrifice. The Word SACRIFICE is not in Daniel 8:11, it has been added by the English Translators....

    Wrong, I do not use WHAT IFS, I proved that Daniel was Praying at the EVENING OBLATION in Daniel chapter 9, if you will read it in full.

    READ IT....Since you evidently didn't.........THIS IS THE KEY HERE..............Daniel 7:20 And whiles I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the Lord my God for the holy mountain of my God;

    21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.

    It tells you right there in LARGE RED LETTERS what the Evening Oblation was...........PRAYER BY DANIEL UNTO God.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,239
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man View Post
    If you reread my original post on this I map it out in detail. The phrase 2300 DAYS was not used, it was 2300 DUSKS and DAWNS, now add that up, its really 1150 Days because there is ONE DUSK and ONE DAWN in each Day. . There is a Required Prayer/Oblation unto God TWICE DAILY. Amen.
    Revelation Man, If you are going to take that idea for Evening and Morning (or Dusk and Dawn) JUST to mean HALF a day, then you need to re-think the creation story...

    Genisis 1:Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

    Did God create the Earth in 3 Days? The Sabbath was only .5 days? One full day is reckoned by the rotation of the earth, which causes Day and Night creating one full rotation of the earth. The Jews used the term dawn and dusk, or evening and morning to represent a full 24 hour period. Daniel was saying ONE SET OF NIGHT TIME AND DAY TIME... I disagree with the idea of half days because of God's way of timing in Genesis. Daniel understood God's way of time, so he used it to show 24 hour periods (What we call 24 hour days) Just like in Genesis.


    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man View Post
    As per your verse in Duteronomy, why would you think a SACRIFICE s the same as an OBLATION? One is a Prayer/honoring God, the other is a ritual Sacrifice. The Word SACRIFICE is not in Daniel 8:11, it has been added by the English Translators....
    Friend, I understand that the word sacrifice is not in Daniel 11 or 8 regarding what is stopped. I believe that Daniel knew that the readers, who were JEWS would know the traditions and law concerning the sacrifices, and there was no need to say the word "SACRIFICE". And in fact, you may be partially correct that they ALSO offered Oblation / prayers. But Sacrifice is EXPECTED By all Jews. Now your argument is that they are SAVED, and yes, if they are in the prophecy, then I would agree that they would be foolish to offer sacrifices, because they SHOULD understand CHRIST was their sacrifice. I get what you are saying. But it does not line up with Scripture. Daniel was a Jew, not a Christian. He was REQUIRED to fulfill the LAW, which COMMANDED HIM to sacrifice for His Sins... If he did not, He was unrighteous according to the Law and the Prophets. IN the same manner, the Priests had to DAILY perform oblation AND Sacrifice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man View Post
    Wrong, I do not use WHAT IFS, I proved that Daniel was Praying at he EVENING OBLATION in Daniel chapter 9, if you will read it in full. READ IT....Since you evidently didn't.........THIS IS THE KEY HERE..............Daniel 7:20 And whiles I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the Lord my God for the holy mountain of my God;21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.

    It tells you right there in LARGE RED LETTERS what the Evening Oblation was...........PRAYER BY DANIEL UNTO God.
    OK, "What Ifs" is a bit harsh, Sorry... But you can not say that because Daniel was praying and offering oblations, that is what DAILY means... This would mean that Daniel "Set his face unto the Lord" daily for the whole day every day every week, ect. He would never get anything done... And he would constantly be in the temple, for the PROPHECY you are referring to is DAILY IN THE TEMPLE... Was Daniel in the Temple when He Set his face unto the Lord? This simply means that he was revealed a secret, and wanted more information, so he bowed down and meditated and prayed until the Lord answered his prayer. It has nothing to do with a DAILY Anything...

    Daniel prayed UNTIL he was ANSWERED at the time of a SEPARATE EVENT from his prayer called the EVENING OBLATION... This event could be daily, I agree. But it is clearly separated from what Daniel was in the process of Doing (Praying).

    Your argument seems weak on this one to me. It is a neat idea, but I can't go with it...

  4. #19

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    You create problems for yourself with this belief. I will show you one so we don't get bogged down with pages of writing.

    The Passover, a crucial part of the Law, involved both the killing of a one-year-old Lamb without blemish. Our Lord Jesus was under Law and would have thus killed and eaten the Passover for thirty three years. Added to this our Lord Himself said in Matthew 5:18; "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Now, the heaven and earth pass away AFTER the Millennial Kingdom of Jesus. The first thousand years of His everlasting Kingdom will be on the old earth, or, the earth as we know it. That is, the Law in its entirety will not only be in effect during the Millennial Kingdom, but it will be fulfilled - NOT BY CHRIST Who has already fulfilled the Law, but by Israel who, until the return of Christ, have NOT fulfilled the Law. In His final act before His death we read in Luke 22:12-16;

    12 "And he shall shew you a large upper room furnished: there make ready.
    13 And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
    14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.
    15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
    16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God."


    Whatever a man's perception of the matter is, the grammar is clear. Our Lord Jesus will kill and eat the Passover after His Second Coming when the Kingdom has been set up on earth. I can write another page to explain why, but this should suffice to show that the Law, the Levitical Priesthood, and the Temple, which is an integral part of the Law, MUST BE IN PLACE in Israel during the Millennium. And so the Book of Ezekiel becomes real and literal.
    No, you're completely wrong. Just a quick read through Galatians and through Hebrews you will recognize that the Law of Moses is kaput--finished! It was finished at the moment the veil was rent, or at the moment Jesus said, "It is finished."

    Unless you understand this you will have to be written off as a "Judaizer," or as something like the Ebionites were--an ancient group that believed in reestablishing the Law.

    The Law of Moses and the Covenant of Law are synonymous terms, and refer to a temporary system put in place in perpetuity until such time as Israel committed apostasy, or until the Messiah removed all obstacles to Israel's redemption. The Law was a temporary means of dealing with sin in Israel until the problem of sin could be finally dealt with.

    "Until heaven and earth pass away" is a kind of oath, suggesting that God's promises on earth are as certain as the stars. Certainly the heavens and the earth will experience some kind of reformation, allowing the current fallen state of the universe to pass away. But the universe, and earth, will actually continue to exist forever, although in this newly reformed state.

    Jesus was saying that God's laws are as intractable as the universe itself. As sure as sin is in man so it's certain that sin had to be dealt with under the Law. Obviously, when sin is dealt with remedies under the Law are no longer needed.

    And that is why Jesus said "until all be fulfilled." It is not when the universe passes away, or is reformed, that the Law ceases to be required. The principles of sin and the need for redemption continue as long as the current universe exists.

    However, when sin was dealt with legally at the cross, the problem of sin was dealt with in a different way from the way the Law dealt with it. The Law was unable to present a final fix for sin, legally. But Christ was able to do this on the cross, and not at the end of the universe.

    Redemption from sin will not be complete until the end of the current universe. But Christ's solution to sin, ending the era of Law, took place on the cross. His was a completely different system of dealing with sin from the Law, and His solution provided an eternal remedy, whereas the system of Law could not.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Clanton Alabama
    Posts
    609

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by Soldier_of_Faith View Post
    Revelation Man, If you are going to take that idea for Evening and Morning (or Dusk and Dawn) JUST to mean HALF a day, then you need to re-think the creation story...

    Genisis 1:Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

    Did God create the Earth in 3 Days? The Sabbath was only .5 days? One full day is reckoned by the rotation of the earth, which causes Day and Night creating one full rotation of the earth. The Jews used the term dawn and dusk, or evening and morning to represent a full 24 hour period. Daniel was saying ONE SET OF NIGHT TIME AND DAY TIME... I disagree with the idea of half days because of God's way of timing in Genesis. Daniel understood God's way of time, so he used it to show 24 hour periods (What we call 24 hour days) Just like in Genesis.
    Read the VERSE, it says DUSK and DAWN not DAY....2300 Dusk and Dawns. As per Genesis I think the very FIRST DAY Lasted 9.2 Billion years, surely you do not think the Universe is 6000 years old, that is like Santa Clause stuff. Genesis uses YOWM...Not the TWO WORDS used in Daniel 8:11, are EREB (Dusk) and BORAQ (Dawn) and both words are used in the same place, so its OBVIOUS that the 2300 is the Evening and Morning PRAYERS. The Universe is 13.7 Billion years old and the Sun and Earth formed at the exact same time via a Nebula of Gasses, 4.5 Billion years ago.

    Nevertheless, the word used is not even day.....its 2300 EREB, BORAQ so we understand it VERY CLEARLY, and many people have wrote about this for many years.

    Friend, I understand that the word sacrifice is not in Daniel 11 or 8 regarding what is stopped. I believe that Daniel knew that the readers, who were JEWS would know the traditions and law concerning the sacrifices, and there was no need to say the word "SACRIFICE". And in fact, you may be partially correct that they ALSO offered Oblation / prayers. But Sacrifice is EXPECTED By all Jews. Now your argument is that they are SAVED, and yes, if they are in the prophecy, then I would agree that they would be foolish to offer sacrifices, because they SHOULD understand CHRIST was their sacrifice. I get what you are saying. But it does not line up with Scripture. Daniel was a Jew, not a Christian. He was REQUIRED to fulfill the LAW, which COMMANDED HIM to sacrifice for His Sins... If he did not, He was unrighteous according to the Law and the Prophets. IN the same manner, the Priests had to DAILY perform oblation AND Sacrifice.
    The EVENING and MORNINGS are OBLATIONS and Daniel shows you in Daniel 9 that is is PRAYER TIME unto God. So since the DUSK and DAWNS are mentioned we know 100 percent that it is speaking of the Daily Oblations.

    OK, "What Ifs" is a bit harsh, Sorry... But you can not say that because Daniel was praying and offering oblations, that is what DAILY means... This would mean that Daniel "Set his face unto the Lord" daily for the whole day every day every week, ect. He would never get anything done... And he would constantly be in the temple, for the PROPHECY you are referring to is DAILY IN THE TEMPLE... Was Daniel in the Temple when He Set his face unto the Lord? This simply means that he was revealed a secret, and wanted more information, so he bowed down and meditated and prayed until the Lord answered his prayer. It has nothing to do with a DAILY Anything...

    Daniel prayed UNTIL he was ANSWERED at the time of a SEPARATE EVENT from his prayer called the EVENING OBLATION... This event could be daily, I agree. But it is clearly separated from what Daniel was in the process of Doing (Praying).

    Your argument seems weak on this one to me. It is a neat idea, but I can't go with it...
    Yes I can, with much more precision than you can claim there is a DAILY SACRIFICE, when there has never been a Sacrifice Daily over months and years times !! The people Israel go up at Passover once a year to offer a Sacrifice for their sins, the same time as Jesus was Sacrificed.

    No it would not mean he set his face towards God ALL DAY LONG, it would mean he prayed at the Dawn and at the Dusk !! Daniel was praying from Babylon, or Persia.

    Likewise the Daily Oblation at Dusk and Dawn will be kept by Israel after they have accepted Jesus as their Messiah.

    My argument is spot on and factual.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,239
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man View Post
    Read the VERSE, it says DUSK and DAWN not DAY....2300 Dusk and Dawns. As per Genesis I think the very FIRST DAY Lasted 9.2 Billion years, surely you do not think the Universe is 6000 years old, that is like Santa Clause stuff. Genesis uses YOWM...Not the TWO WORDS used in Daniel 8:11, are EREB (Dusk) and BORAQ (Dawn) and both words are used in the same place, so its OBVIOUS that the 2300 is the Evening and Morning PRAYERS. The Universe is 13.7 Billion years old and the Sun and Earth formed at the exact same time via a Nebula of Gasses, 4.5 Billion years ago.

    Nevertheless, the word used is not even day.....its 2300 EREB, BORAQ so we understand it VERY CLEARLY, and many people have wrote about this for many years.



    The EVENING and MORNINGS are OBLATIONS and Daniel shows you in Daniel 9 that is is PRAYER TIME unto God. So since the DUSK and DAWNS are mentioned we know 100 percent that it is speaking of the Daily Oblations.



    Yes I can, with much more precision than you can claim there is a DAILY SACRIFICE, when there has never been a Sacrifice Daily over months and years times !! The people Israel go up at Passover once a year to offer a Sacrifice for their sins, the same time as Jesus was Sacrificed.

    No it would not mean he set his face towards God ALL DAY LONG, it would mean he prayed at the Dawn and at the Dusk !! Daniel was praying from Babylon, or Persia.

    Likewise the Daily Oblation at Dusk and Dawn will be kept by Israel after they have accepted Jesus as their Messiah.

    My argument is spot on and factual.
    Well, at least our disagreement will not destroy our salvation.

    The truth will be relieved soon when and if a temple is built and whatever the DAILY is, is put into effect. Then if we can speak again, a more clear understanding will be gleaned.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Clanton Alabama
    Posts
    609

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by Soldier_of_Faith View Post
    Well, at least our disagreement will not destroy our salvation.

    The truth will be relieved soon when and if a temple is built and whatever the DAILY is, is put into effect. Then if we can speak again, a more clear understanding will be gleaned.
    I will be in Heaven............

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,052

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    No, you're completely wrong. Just a quick read through Galatians and through Hebrews you will recognize that the Law of Moses is kaput--finished! It was finished at the moment the veil was rent, or at the moment Jesus said, "It is finished."

    Unless you understand this you will have to be written off as a "Judaizer," or as something like the Ebionites were--an ancient group that believed in reestablishing the Law.

    The Law of Moses and the Covenant of Law are synonymous terms, and refer to a temporary system put in place in perpetuity until such time as Israel committed apostasy, or until the Messiah removed all obstacles to Israel's redemption. The Law was a temporary means of dealing with sin in Israel until the problem of sin could be finally dealt with.

    "Until heaven and earth pass away" is a kind of oath, suggesting that God's promises on earth are as certain as the stars. Certainly the heavens and the earth will experience some kind of reformation, allowing the current fallen state of the universe to pass away. But the universe, and earth, will actually continue to exist forever, although in this newly reformed state.

    Jesus was saying that God's laws are as intractable as the universe itself. As sure as sin is in man so it's certain that sin had to be dealt with under the Law. Obviously, when sin is dealt with remedies under the Law are no longer needed.

    And that is why Jesus said "until all be fulfilled." It is not when the universe passes away, or is reformed, that the Law ceases to be required. The principles of sin and the need for redemption continue as long as the current universe exists.

    However, when sin was dealt with legally at the cross, the problem of sin was dealt with in a different way from the way the Law dealt with it. The Law was unable to present a final fix for sin, legally. But Christ was able to do this on the cross, and not at the end of the universe.

    Redemption from sin will not be complete until the end of the current universe. But Christ's solution to sin, ending the era of Law, took place on the cross. His was a completely different system of dealing with sin from the Law, and His solution provided an eternal remedy, whereas the system of Law could not.
    Thanks for your answer. As you did not enter into ....
    1. our Lord killing and eating the Passover in the kingdom WHEN HE COMES,
    2. the direct and unambiguous statement of our Lord Jesus that the Law would not pass "UNTIL" heaven and earth passed ("until" indicates that it will eventually pass)

    ... I will let my posting stand.

    You spoke much about "sin". I did not even address it. I take your answer as a smokescreen.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Clanton Alabama
    Posts
    609

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by Soldier_of_Faith View Post
    Revelation Man, If you are going to take that idea for Evening and Morning (or Dusk and Dawn) JUST to mean HALF a day, then you need to re-think the creation story...

    Genisis 1:Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

    Did God create the Earth in 3 Days? The Sabbath was only .5 days? One full day is reckoned by the rotation of the earth, which causes Day and Night creating one full rotation of the earth. The Jews used the term dawn and dusk, or evening and morning to represent a full 24 hour period. Daniel was saying ONE SET OF NIGHT TIME AND DAY TIME... I disagree with the idea of half days because of God's way of timing in Genesis. Daniel understood God's way of time, so he used it to show 24 hour periods (What we call 24 hour days) Just like in Genesis.




    Friend, I understand that the word sacrifice is not in Daniel 11 or 8 regarding what is stopped. I believe that Daniel knew that the readers, who were JEWS would know the traditions and law concerning the sacrifices, and there was no need to say the word "SACRIFICE". And in fact, you may be partially correct that they ALSO offered Oblation / prayers. But Sacrifice is EXPECTED By all Jews. Now your argument is that they are SAVED, and yes, if they are in the prophecy, then I would agree that they would be foolish to offer sacrifices, because they SHOULD understand CHRIST was their sacrifice. I get what you are saying. But it does not line up with Scripture. Daniel was a Jew, not a Christian. He was REQUIRED to fulfill the LAW, which COMMANDED HIM to sacrifice for His Sins... If he did not, He was unrighteous according to the Law and the Prophets. IN the same manner, the Priests had to DAILY perform oblation AND Sacrifice.



    OK, "What Ifs" is a bit harsh, Sorry... But you can not say that because Daniel was praying and offering oblations, that is what DAILY means... This would mean that Daniel "Set his face unto the Lord" daily for the whole day every day every week, ect. He would never get anything done... And he would constantly be in the temple, for the PROPHECY you are referring to is DAILY IN THE TEMPLE... Was Daniel in the Temple when He Set his face unto the Lord? This simply means that he was revealed a secret, and wanted more information, so he bowed down and meditated and prayed until the Lord answered his prayer. It has nothing to do with a DAILY Anything...

    Daniel prayed UNTIL he was ANSWERED at the time of a SEPARATE EVENT from his prayer called the EVENING OBLATION... This event could be daily, I agree. But it is clearly separated from what Daniel was in the process of Doing (Praying).

    Your argument seems weak on this one to me. It is a neat idea, but I can't go with it...
    CHECK OUT VERSE 26.........Daniel 8:26 openly calls it the Evening and the Morning Prophecy !!

    Daniel 8:26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.

    This proves the Vision of 2300 was about the EVENING..........and the MORNING [OBLATIONS]...........Not about 2300 Days. AMEN

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,239
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man View Post
    CHECK OUT VERSE 26.........Daniel 8:26 openly calls it the Evening and the Morning Prophecy !!

    Daniel 8:26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.

    This proves the Vision of 2300 was about the EVENING..........and the MORNING [OBLATIONS]...........Not about 2300 Days. AMEN
    LOL, Revelation Man! You are arguing into my point... Are you aware of when the day starts for the Jews? A Jewish day goes from Dusk to Dusk or Evening to Evening. So then, Evening to Dawn is moving from day one to day 2 a new day. One day passes to another. It represents ONE DAY passed into another. If a child is born after dark (PAST evening) on what we would call the 10th, it is considered born on the next day the 11th, even if by our standard it is still the 10th..

    Evening (First day) and Morning (2nd day) They ARE NOT the same day.

    So 2300 is exactly that number. Why can't it be 2300? Can you please explain to me again why that number does not work for your understanding of the prophecy?

  11. #26
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Clanton Alabama
    Posts
    609

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by Soldier_of_Faith View Post
    LOL, Revelation Man! You are arguing into my point... Are you aware of when the day starts for the Jews? A Jewish day goes from Dusk to Dusk or Evening to Evening. So then, Evening to Dawn is moving from day one to day 2 a new day. One day passes to another. It represents ONE DAY passed into another. If a child is born after dark (PAST evening) on what we would call the 10th, it is considered born on the next day the 11th, even if by our standard it is still the 10th..

    Evening (First day) and Morning (2nd day) They ARE NOT the same day.

    So 2300 is exactly that number. Why can't it be 2300? Can you please explain to me again why that number does not work for your understanding of the prophecy?
    Ummmmmmm no, it says the 2300 Dusks and Dawns meaning Oblations unto God. Sorry brother, I am not arguing that its 2300 days because the scripture doesn't use days, it uses DUSK and DAWNS meaning 2300 tributes unto God. This is a WELL KNOW FACT....Google it, everyone knows what it means. I have been studying this for Years. I am surprised you have never heard about this.

    God Bless...Gotta run

  12. #27

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    Thanks for your answer. As you did not enter into ....
    1. our Lord killing and eating the Passover in the kingdom WHEN HE COMES,
    2. the direct and unambiguous statement of our Lord Jesus that the Law would not pass "UNTIL" heaven and earth passed ("until" indicates that it will eventually pass)

    ... I will let my posting stand.

    You spoke much about "sin". I did not even address it. I take your answer as a smokescreen.
    You didn't answer my points either. Shall I take that as a "dodge?" No, I meant to point out that NT Theology discredits any effort at reviving OT laws and rituals. If Jesus said he will eat again in the Kingdom then it will be the same as the Communion service, a *remembrance* of his death for sin.

    In mentioning "sin" am I "dodging?" No, the Law was all about sin. The Passover was all about sin. In completely dealing with sin there is no longer need for reference to the Law. Its remedy for sin was temporary. But now that sin has been dealt with for all time, the Law is moot with respect to dealing with sin.

    But you didn't deal with the very serious charge that you could be construed as a Judaizer. Why don't you deal with that serious question? If NT Theology upholds my view that the Law is kaput and done away with, and if countering this would make you a Judaizer, why don't you just admit that you don't believe the NT Scriptures when they denounce anybody who reestablishes the Law of Moses?

    Perhaps this is why you charge me with putting up "smokescreens?" You just don't want to face the music. NT Theology condemns any effort by Christians to reinstitute the Law. Do I really need to quote Galatians and Hebrews?

    Gal 3.3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?

    Heb 7.12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.


    As for Matthew 5, the passage reads...
    17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

    Jesus said this while he was still under the Law of Moses, while he was still in his earthly ministry. He did not annul the Law at that time. His purpose was to fulfil the purpose of the Law, which was to prepare the way for his own coming. It was not to remain in effect forever. Rather, it was to show the way to Christ's own righteousness, which is completely separate from the Law.

    The passage also says...
    Mat 5.18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

    What you have to understand is what Jesus saw as the *accomplishment* of the Law. Israel continued to have to keep the Law until the veil was rent. It was kept, according to Jesus, as a testimony to himself and to his own righteousness! It was not a testimony to itself, as if the Law would have to be kept forever!

    So it is the testimony to Jesus by the Law that would endure throughout the age, and not the continuing validity of the Law as a covenant. That covenant was violated by Israel at the death of Christ, and will not be renewed. But the testimony of the Law to Christ is an eternal testimony, which cannot ever be eradicated. All that the Law represented, the inability of man to redeem himself, was demonstrated in the righteousness of Christ, which no man could attain to. And this testimony remains forever. Every jot and tittle of the Law pointed to Christ's perfection, and to the inability of sinful man to redeem himself.

    Mat 5.19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.


    Here Jesus is calling for Israel to continue following every jot and tittle of the Law because at that time Israel was still under the Law. Jesus was not calling for Israel to follow the Law forever. Rather, he was pointing out how the Law was a testimony to himself.

    "I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

    And so the Law was not meant to point to itself as an eternal covenant. Rather, it was a continuing testimony to man's inability to attain to salvation under the Law. It was a continuing testimony to Israel's inability to find eternal salvation under the Law. It was a continuing testimony to Christ, whose works in redemption would bring an end to the condemnation of the Law.

    This testimony of the Law shows man's need for a complete bodily redemption while the current universe exists. As long as sin exists on this earth the testimony of the Law will point to our need for Christ as our deliverer from sin. The Law could *never* provide eternal deliverance from sin, and so gave way to Christ alone.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,052

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You didn't answer my points either. Shall I take that as a "dodge?" No, I meant to point out that NT Theology discredits any effort at reviving OT laws and rituals. If Jesus said he will eat again in the Kingdom then it will be the same as the Communion service, a *remembrance* of his death for sin.

    In mentioning "sin" am I "dodging?" No, the Law was all about sin. The Passover was all about sin. In completely dealing with sin there is no longer need for reference to the Law. Its remedy for sin was temporary. But now that sin has been dealt with for all time, the Law is moot with respect to dealing with sin.

    But you didn't deal with the very serious charge that you could be construed as a Judaizer. Why don't you deal with that serious question? If NT Theology upholds my view that the Law is kaput and done away with, and if countering this would make you a Judaizer, why don't you just admit that you don't believe the NT Scriptures when they denounce anybody who reestablishes the Law of Moses?

    Perhaps this is why you charge me with putting up "smokescreens?" You just don't want to face the music. NT Theology condemns any effort by Christians to reinstitute the Law. Do I really need to quote Galatians and Hebrews?

    Gal 3.3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?

    Heb 7.12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.


    As for Matthew 5, the passage reads...
    17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

    Jesus said this while he was still under the Law of Moses, while he was still in his earthly ministry. He did not annul the Law at that time. His purpose was to fulfil the purpose of the Law, which was to prepare the way for his own coming. It was not to remain in effect forever. Rather, it was to show the way to Christ's own righteousness, which is completely separate from the Law.

    The passage also says...
    Mat 5.18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

    What you have to understand is what Jesus saw as the *accomplishment* of the Law. Israel continued to have to keep the Law until the veil was rent. It was kept, according to Jesus, as a testimony to himself and to his own righteousness! It was not a testimony to itself, as if the Law would have to be kept forever!

    So it is the testimony to Jesus by the Law that would endure throughout the age, and not the continuing validity of the Law as a covenant. That covenant was violated by Israel at the death of Christ, and will not be renewed. But the testimony of the Law to Christ is an eternal testimony, which cannot ever be eradicated. All that the Law represented, the inability of man to redeem himself, was demonstrated in the righteousness of Christ, which no man could attain to. And this testimony remains forever. Every jot and tittle of the Law pointed to Christ's perfection, and to the inability of sinful man to redeem himself.

    Mat 5.19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.


    Here Jesus is calling for Israel to continue following every jot and tittle of the Law because at that time Israel was still under the Law. Jesus was not calling for Israel to follow the Law forever. Rather, he was pointing out how the Law was a testimony to himself.

    "I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

    And so the Law was not meant to point to itself as an eternal covenant. Rather, it was a continuing testimony to man's inability to attain to salvation under the Law. It was a continuing testimony to Israel's inability to find eternal salvation under the Law. It was a continuing testimony to Christ, whose works in redemption would bring an end to the condemnation of the Law.

    This testimony of the Law shows man's need for a complete bodily redemption while the current universe exists. As long as sin exists on this earth the testimony of the Law will point to our need for Christ as our deliverer from sin. The Law could *never* provide eternal deliverance from sin, and so gave way to Christ alone.
    Once again I read through a comprehensive answer of yours and yet you do not address our Lord killing and eating the Passover when He comes in His Kingdom. Surely, if you disagree with this, you can explain why the Master Himself said He was going to do it. Let's fix this one thing, then we can go on to explain why the Law will NOT pass till heaven and earth pass. It is no good pitting one scripture against another. That only shows that you disregard the Bible as a whole as inerrant. You cannot discard our Lord's PROMISE to kill and eat the Passover in His Kingdom when He comes. You have to explain it. It is no good rebuking me. I did not say this. The Bible did.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,223
    Blog Entries
    30

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    Ezekiel 43:
    1 Then he led me to the gate, the gate facing toward the east; 2 and behold, the glory of the God of Israel was coming from the way of the east. And His voice was like the sound of many waters; and the earth shone with His glory. 3 And it was like the appearance of the vision which I saw, like the vision which I saw when He came to destroy the city. And the visions were like the vision which I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell on my face. 4 And the glory of the Lord came into the house by the way of the gate facing toward the east. 5 And the Spirit lifted me up and brought me into the inner court; and behold, the glory of the Lord filled the house.

    6 Then I heard one speaking to me from the house, while a man was standing beside me. 7 He said to me, ôSon of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell among the sons of Israel forever. And the house of Israel will not again defile My holy name, neither they nor their kings, by their harlotry and by the corpses of their kings when they die, 8 by setting their threshold by My threshold and their door post beside My door post, with only the wall between Me and them. And they have defiled My holy name by their abominations which they have committed. So I have consumed them in My anger. 9 Now let them put away their harlotry and the corpses of their kings far from Me; and I will dwell among them forever.

  15. #30

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    Once again I read through a comprehensive answer of yours and yet you do not address our Lord killing and eating the Passover when He comes in His Kingdom. Surely, if you disagree with this, you can explain why the Master Himself said He was going to do it. Let's fix this one thing, then we can go on to explain why the Law will NOT pass till heaven and earth pass. It is no good pitting one scripture against another. That only shows that you disregard the Bible as a whole as inerrant. You cannot discard our Lord's PROMISE to kill and eat the Passover in His Kingdom when He comes. You have to explain it. It is no good rebuking me. I did not say this. The Bible did.
    Why do you say I did not address it? I said: "If Jesus said he will eat again in the Kingdom then it will be the same as the Communion service, a *remembrance* of his death for sin."

    Apparently you didn't connect this answer with your question? The Eucharist is not a perpetuation of Passover, since the Law is no longer in effect as a covenant. It is retained as a congregational meal to corporately remember Christ in our midst. It is to acknowledge the purpose of his mission, and the centrality of his spirit in the life of the Church.

    The synoptic gospels inform us of the initial event, the Last Supper. John's version is vague, focusing on the spiritual relationship of Christ to the Church.

    When Jesus said he will drink wine again in the Kingdom of God he did *not* say he was perpetuating Passover. He only said he was going to have congregational fellowship with his people again with wine served. This is a reference to the resurrection.

    Obviously, in all of the times Christians have done this in the Eucharist they have never viewed this as a continuation of Passover, even though it began in the OT era at Passover. The Law is *no longer in effect.* To have this experience again, then, is simply a kind of Communion service, a gathering of Jesus with his people over a meal to commemorate this spiritual relationship.

    Matthew 26.29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.

    Jesus *never* indicated he would kill the Passover in the Kingdom. He said he would drink wine with his disciples, indicating that his prophesied death would result in a resurrection. This is, in fact, a prophecy of the general resurrection in the Kingdom of God.

    You still do not address NT Theology, which adamantly claims that the Law is no longer in effect, that its function is useless with respect to eternal salvation. On the other hand, a rite like Eucharist, which *remembers* Christ as our salvation, is useful as a memory tool. Passover has no such function.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Image of the beast = future temple Aod established
    By ross3421 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Jul 20th 2016, 01:41 PM
  2. My future!
    By MyRock in forum Praise
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Jun 11th 2013, 07:01 AM
  3. Replies: 116
    Last Post: Mar 20th 2012, 06:25 PM
  4. Replies: 230
    Last Post: May 15th 2011, 09:46 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •