PDA

View Full Version : Why there will be an earthly millennial temple with sin offerings:



Nihil Obstat
Jun 2nd 2008, 09:10 AM
I've been wrestling with this for years, and every few months revise my conclusion. What bothers me is that I see clearly in the word that during the millennium will be sin offerings commanded by Jesus Himself for the atonement of sins. I refuse to compromise what the word plainly says, spiritualizing it away, yet I deny the simple and common answer that they are memorial sacrifices (since it is equally straight forward that the offerings do something). And, pretty much the only reason I've found anyone to be Amil is because of this Scriptural paradox! Here's my latest thoughts. Let me know what you think (and Pre-mils, please give me feedback as well). Thanks!

1) Jesus' blood is sufficient to atone for the sins of the entire world (1 John 2:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:2;&version=31;)).

2) However, Jesus only makes atonement for those sins brought before Him (1 John 1:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%201:9;&version=31;)).

3) The two goats on the Day of Atonement were considered one sacrifice (Lev. 16:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016:5;&version=50;)) for the sins the people grieved over (v.31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016:31;&version=50;)).

4) In "millennial" prophecies, there is no mention of the Day of Atonement (though other Jewish feast days are, as are sacrifices).

5) Jesus' blood was greater than the offerings of bulls and goats made on the Day of Atonement (Heb. 9:11-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:11-15;&version=50;)).

6) The daily sin offerings were heaped up into the temple throughout the year, and the Day of Atonement cleansed the temple.

7) Jesus, our High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, cleansed the temple in heaven with His own blood once for all (Heb. 9:23-26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:23-26;&version=50;)).

8) And yet, Scripture tells us Jesus will forever dwell in a temple in Jerusalem (Eze. 43:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2043:7;&version=50;)), commanding sin offerings (vv.19-27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2043:19-27;&version=50;)).

9) There will be people in the millennium without resurrected bodies (Isa. 65:20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2065:20;&version=50;); 66:19-21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2066:19-21;&version=50;); Zech. 14:16-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%2014:16-19;&version=50;); Rev. 19:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2019:15;&version=50;); 20:7-9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:7-10;&version=50;); etc).

10) These will bring their sins into the temple by animal sacrifice to be atoned by Jesus' blood (Ps. 51:17-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2051:17-19;&version=50;); 118:26-27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20118:26-27;&version=50;); Isa. 56:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2056:7;&version=50;)).

Basically, what I'm claiming here, is that Jesus' sacrifice (as put forth in the book of Hebrews) was once for all, in a similar yet greater way as the Day of Atonement was once a year for all. His death was not a picture of the daily sin and trespass offerings made by individuals, but only of the offering made on the Day of Atonement by the high priest. (True, this offering was not by use of a lamb; however, Jesus being called "the slain Lamb" more likely refers to either Isa. 53 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2053;&version=50;) or Ex. 12-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2012-13;&version=50;).) And because the Day of Atonement was the only day when all the sins (having been heaped up in the temple throughout the year) would be atoned for and removed from their midst, so too Jesus' expiatory death atones for all sins laid up in heaven's temple, taking them away that they are remembered no more.

Presently there is no earthly temple in Jerusalem in which to perform sacrifices for sin. However, in the millennium, there will be (Zech. 6:11-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%206:11-15;&version=50;)). Those who sin unintentionally will take their offering to the temple in order to make atonement for their sin. The sin is not laid up in the temple for a later day and a second sacrifice, but is instead taken in by the animal's blood and then immediately taken away by Jesus' blood. The manifest glory of God will be present in a far more remarkable way than in Moses' day (Rev. 21:9-22:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021:9-22:5;&version=50;)), and people will not so easily find themselves sinning. Mortals at the beginning of the millennium (as opposed to at the end - Rev. 20:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:8;&version=50;)) will also be as rare as the precious gold of Ophir (Isa. 13:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2013:12;&version=50;)), so I imagine most will dwell in and around Israel (Isa. 2:2-4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%202:2-4;&version=50;); Zech. 8:20-23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%208:20-23;&version=50;); 14:16-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%2014:16-19;&version=50;)).

To me, a Gentile, this makes sense. If you're a Messianic Jew, definitely comment on this! - Lk.11

DeafPosttrib
Jun 2nd 2008, 09:30 AM
Cannot you understand what Jesus said, "It is FINISHED" while on the cross 2,000 years ago? - John 19:30. At the same time, His soul yeild up, and the veil in the building of temple was torn down from top to bottom - Matt. 27:51. It shews that God is finished with daily sacrifices. Christ ended it - Dan. 9:26-27. Now, Christ is our the atonement and the perfect sacrifice, we need. We are now the priests, we have the rights to ask Jesus to forgive us anytime 24 hours daily. We do not need earthly high priests, and go out and looking for a pure lamb outside anymore. We can just looking up at Jesus anytime, because he is the finisher and the perfect sacrifice. Jews failed to realize that Jesus is the Messiah and the perfect sacrifice.

No. We do not need another animal sacrifices again anymore in the future. Because, Jesus is the ONLY perfect sacrifice, that we need.

When, Jesus shall come in power and glory, everyone -above, pn earth, and below, all shall bow down before Christ and confess that He is the Lord - Phil. 2:9-11.

Everyone will not look down upon earthly things, they will looking AT Jesus in person. Jesus is the answer of everything that we need.

Jesus is the eternality perfect sacrifice, that we are already have.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

Nihil Obstat
Jun 2nd 2008, 10:23 AM
What was finished on the cross (John 19:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019:28;&version=50;), 30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019:30;&version=50;))? Surely not the atonement! The author of Hebrews wrote that if Christ had died without His resurrection and ascension, then He wouldn't have cleansed the temple in heaven and so would have had to die many deaths (Heb. 9:23-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:23-28&version=50)). Remember, the two goats were considered one sacrifice. I think instead that by "finished" Jesus meant that up to that point He had fulfilled all that was written of Him (which was meant to be an encouragement to John, seeing as none yet understood that the Christ had to die).

And the veil tearing in Matt. 27:51 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027:51;&version=50;) is quite another matter, seeing as how only the high priest would pass through that veil, three times one day a year on the Day of Atonement. Was the veil tearing to signify access to the Most Holy Place by all? I'm not so sure, seeing as how only the ministering Jewish priests would have discovered the veil torn in two, and then would have immediately sent to have a new veil made. I think instead it more likely that the veil being rent in two was God's way of revealing that His presence had left the temple, because His covenant people had killed their covenant God.

Lk.11

Firstfruits
Jun 2nd 2008, 12:30 PM
According to what is written the new Jerusalem will remain and the former shall not be rembered, if the millenium is therefore on this earth it is not going to remain.

Is 65:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=65&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
Is 65:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=65&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.

Is 66:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=66&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.

This earth reserved unto fire.

2 Pet 3:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=61&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=7) But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

2 Pet 3:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=61&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

2 Pet 3:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=61&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Is 60:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=60&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified.

This earth is not eternal and does not meet the requierment to remain and continue for ever and ever.

Firstfruits

Nihil Obstat
Jun 2nd 2008, 01:38 PM
What will not be remembered in the new heavens and new earth is the former ways; the sin and death, the crying and pain (Rev. 21:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021:1-5;&version=50;)). The language is similar to that of the New Covenant in Jer. 31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2031:33-34&version=50) (though Jeremiah was written over one hundred years after Isaiah), which God says is as eternal as the sun, moon, and stars (31:35-37 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2031:35-37;&version=50;); 33:25-26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2033:25-26;&version=50;); cp. Ps. 89:34-37 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2089:34-37;&version=50;)). And this is exactly what Peter wrote about: the earth was baptized in water by the Flood, and will one day be baptized by fire. In Noah's day the earth was cleansed of all its unclean principles; in the Day of God all creation will be cleansed. This does not mean, however, that the earth will be literally destroyed, any more than we are destroyed upon being born again (2 Cor. 5:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%205:17;&version=50;)). The promise in Eze. 43:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2043:7;&version=50;) is as sure as God is faithful. The New Jerusalem will descend from heaven and become one with the temple in Jerusalem (Eph. 1:9-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%201:9-10;&version=50;)); it will not replace it.

Firstfruits
Jun 2nd 2008, 01:53 PM
What will not be remembered in the new heavens and new earth is the former ways; the sin and death, the crying and pain (Rev. 21:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021:1-5;&version=50;)). The language is similar to that of the New Covenant in Jer. 31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2031:33-34&version=50) (though Jeremiah was written over one hundred years after Isaiah), which God says is as eternal as the sun, moon, and stars (31:35-37 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2031:35-37;&version=50;); 33:25-26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2033:25-26;&version=50;); cp. Ps. 89:34-37 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2089:34-37;&version=50;)). And this is exactly what Peter wrote about: the earth was baptized in water by the Flood, and will one day be baptized by fire. In Noah's day the earth was cleansed of all its unclean principles; in the Day of God all creation will be cleansed. This does not mean, however, that the earth will be literally destroyed, any more than we are destroyed upon being born again (2 Cor. 5:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%205:17;&version=50;)). The promise in Eze. 43:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2043:7;&version=50;) is as sure as God is faithful. The New Jerusalem will descend from heaven and become one with the temple in Jerusalem (Eph. 1:9-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%201:9-10;&version=50;)); it will not replace it.

If it is only the former ways that will not be remembered why is it burnt by fire?

This earth reserved unto fire.

2 Pet 3:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=61&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=7) But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

2 Pet 3:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=61&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

The first will be no more.

Is 65:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=65&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
Is 65:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=65&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.

Is 66:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=66&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.

Rev 21:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) And I saw a new heaven And a new earth: for the first heaven And the first earth were passed away; And there was no more sea.

Rev 20:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=20&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

Firstfruits

Nihil Obstat
Jun 2nd 2008, 01:59 PM
In the same way the world perished by the Flood (2 Pet. 3:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:6&version=50)), so too it is reserved for destruction by fire (v.7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:7;&version=50;)). Did the earth disappear and a new one replace it during the year that Noah floated upon the waters above the mountains? Quite obviously, no. So how can you say that this earth is not eternal? (And please let's do our best to stay on topic.)

Firstfruits
Jun 2nd 2008, 02:19 PM
In the same way the world perished by the Flood (2 Pet. 3:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:6&version=50)), so too it is reserved for destruction by fire (v.7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:7;&version=50;)). Did the earth disappear and a new one replace it during the year that Noah floated upon the waters above the mountains? Quite obviously, no. So how can you say that this earth is not eternal? (And please let's do our best to stay on topic.)

What will be left if the earth is burnt up and has passed away?

Rev 21:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) And I saw a new heaven And a new earth: for the first heaven And the first earth were passed away; And there was no more sea.

Rev 20:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=20&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

When the earth was cleansed by the flood it affected the inhabitants.

Next time it will not just affect the inhabitants.

Ps 75:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=19&CHAP=75&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah.

However you look at it this earth will not remain, or there would be no need for one that will remain.

wpm
Jun 2nd 2008, 02:44 PM
I've been wrestling with this for years, and every few months revise my conclusion. What bothers me is that I see clearly in the word that during the millennium will be sin offerings commanded by Jesus Himself for the atonement of sins. I refuse to compromise what the word plainly says, spiritualizing it away, yet I deny the simple and common answer that they are memorial sacrifices (since it is equally straight forward that the offerings do something). And, pretty much the only reason I've found anyone to be Amil is because of this Scriptural paradox! Here's my latest thoughts. Let me know what you think (and Pre-mils, please give me feedback as well). Thanks!

1) Jesus' blood is sufficient to atone for the sins of the entire world (1 John 2:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:2;&version=31;)).

2) However, Jesus only makes atonement for those sins brought before Him (1 John 1:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%201:9;&version=31;)).

3) The two goats on the Day of Atonement were considered one sacrifice (Lev. 16:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016:5;&version=50;)) for the sins the people grieved over (v.31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016:31;&version=50;)).

4) In "millennial" prophecies, there is no mention of the Day of Atonement (though other Jewish feast days are, as are sacrifices).

5) Jesus' blood was greater than the offerings of bulls and goats made on the Day of Atonement (Heb. 9:11-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:11-15;&version=50;)).

6) The daily sin offerings were heaped up into the temple throughout the year, and the Day of Atonement cleansed the temple.

7) Jesus, our High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, cleansed the temple in heaven with His own blood once for all (Heb. 9:23-26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:23-26;&version=50;)).

8) And yet, Scripture tells us Jesus will forever dwell in a temple in Jerusalem (Eze. 43:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2043:7;&version=50;)), commanding sin offerings (vv.19-27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2043:19-27;&version=50;)).

9) There will be people in the millennium without resurrected bodies (Isa. 65:20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2065:20;&version=50;); 66:19-21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2066:19-21;&version=50;); Zech. 14:16-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%2014:16-19;&version=50;); Rev. 19:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2019:15;&version=50;); 20:7-9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:7-10;&version=50;); etc).

10) These will bring their sins into the temple by animal sacrifice to be atoned by Jesus' blood (Ps. 51:17-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2051:17-19;&version=50;); 118:26-27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20118:26-27;&version=50;); Isa. 56:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2056:7;&version=50;)).

Basically, what I'm claiming here, is that Jesus' sacrifice (as put forth in the book of Hebrews) was once for all, in a similar yet greater way as the Day of Atonement was once a year for all. His death was not a picture of the daily sin and trespass offerings made by individuals, but only of the offering made on the Day of Atonement by the high priest. (True, this offering was not by use of a lamb; however, Jesus being called "the slain Lamb" more likely refers to either Isa. 53 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2053;&version=50;) or Ex. 12-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2012-13;&version=50;).) And because the Day of Atonement was the only day when all the sins (having been heaped up in the temple throughout the year) would be atoned for and removed from their midst, so too Jesus' expiatory death atones for all sins laid up in heaven's temple, taking them away that they are remembered no more.

Presently there is no earthly temple in Jerusalem in which to perform sacrifices for sin. However, in the millennium, there will be (Zech. 6:11-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%206:11-15;&version=50;)). Those who sin unintentionally will take their offering to the temple in order to make atonement for their sin. The sin is not laid up in the temple for a later day and a second sacrifice, but is instead taken in by the animal's blood and then immediately taken away by Jesus' blood. The manifest glory of God will be present in a far more remarkable way than in Moses' day (Rev. 21:9-22:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021:9-22:5;&version=50;)), and people will not so easily find themselves sinning. Mortals at the beginning of the millennium (as opposed to at the end - Rev. 20:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:8;&version=50;)) will also be as rare as the precious gold of Ophir (Isa. 13:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2013:12;&version=50;)), so I imagine most will dwell in and around Israel (Isa. 2:2-4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%202:2-4;&version=50;); Zech. 8:20-23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%208:20-23;&version=50;); 14:16-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%2014:16-19;&version=50;)).

To me, a Gentile, this makes sense. If you're a Messianic Jew, definitely comment on this! - Lk.11

This is of course a major difference between Amils and Premils. However, it is only one of several major objections to Premil. Amils believe Premillennialism undermines the cross-work. Your initial post is a case-in-point. I think you missed my post yesterday on another thread. I will repost as I can't add further to the clear NT Scriptures that forbid the re-introduction of the abolished old covenant. The new covenant has superseded it. Christ is the final sacrifice for sin - there are no more.

Hebrews 10:18 says, “there is no more offering for sin.”

Hebrews 10:26 says, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.”

Christ is man's only substitute for sin. Why would we need other substitutes for sin? Surely this is a serious assault upon the merits and value of the Cross. Christ is the final sacrifice for sin. Christ has made that one final satisfactory sacrifice for sin. The old ordinances were nailed to the tree with Christ. The old covenant was removed with the introduction of the new.

We should let Scripture speak for itself. Colossians 2:14 plainly declares, speaking of these animal sacrifices, “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.”

Q. When did/will the "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances" occur?

A. Christ "took it out of the way" by "nailing it to his cross.”

These ordinances embraced the old covenant civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical law. They were finished at the cross.

When Christ made that final sacrifice for sin He satisfied all God’s holy demands for sin and uncleanness and thus Christ became the final propitiation and substitution for the sinner. Ephesians 2:15 also says,“Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.”

You say it is not done away with. Scripture describes the old covenant sacrificial system as “that which is done away” (2 Corinthians 3:11). I choose to run with Scripture. It tells us, the “vail is done away in Christ” (2 Corinthians 3:14). Whether you agree or not, Hebrews 10:9 confirms, “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.”

You say there are more offerings for sin. Hebrews 10:18 says, “there is no more offering for sin.” You say, there remains more sacrifices for sins,Hebrews 10:26 says, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.” Scripture is more reliable.

It is clear: Scripture forbids your proposal of bringing back the old covenant arrangement.

Paul

DeafPosttrib
Jun 2nd 2008, 02:57 PM
wpm,

Amen! Well saying! [:thumb up:]

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

moonglow
Jun 2nd 2008, 03:09 PM
This is of course a major difference between Amils and Premils. However, it is only one of several major objections to Premil. Amils believe Premillennialism undermines the cross-work. Your initial post is a case-in-point. I think you missed my post yesterday on another thread. I will repost as I can't add further to the clear NT Scriptures that forbid the re-introduction of the abolished old covenant. The new covenant has superseded it. Christ is the final sacrifice for sin - there are no more.

Hebrews 10:18 says, “there is no more offering for sin.”

Hebrews 10:26 says, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.”

Christ is man's only substitute for sin. Why would we need other substitutes for sin? Surely this is a serious assault upon the merits and value of the Cross. Christ is the final sacrifice for sin. Christ has made that one final satisfactory sacrifice for sin. The old ordinances were nailed to the tree with Christ. The old covenant was removed with the introduction of the new.

We should let Scripture speak for itself. Colossians 2:14 plainly declares, speaking of these animal sacrifices, “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.”

Q. When did/will the "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances" occur?

A. Christ "took it out of the way" by "nailing it to his cross.”

These ordinances embraced the old covenant civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical law. They were finished at the cross.

When Christ made that final sacrifice for sin He satisfied all God’s holy demands for sin and uncleanness and thus Christ became the final propitiation and substitution for the sinner. Ephesians 2:15 also says,“Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.”

You say it is not done away with. Scripture describes the old covenant sacrificial system as “that which is done away” (2 Corinthians 3:11). I choose to run with Scripture. It tells us, the “vail is done away in Christ” (2 Corinthians 3:14). Whether agree or not, Hebrews 10:9 confirms, “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.”

You say there are more offerings for sin. Hebrews 10:18 says, “there is no more offering for sin.” You say, there remains more sacrifices for sins,Hebrews 10:26 says, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.” Scripture is more reliable.

It is clear: Scripture forbids your proposal of bringing back the old covenant arrangement.

Paul

Amen. What an insult to Christ to have this all over again...when scripture is clear...all we have to do now is ask for forgiveness.

1 John 1:9

9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Not a word is said about bringing an animal to kill having its blood cover our sins, then Christs blood...again...covering those sins.


Presently there is no earthly temple in Jerusalem in which to perform sacrifices for sin. However, in the millennium, there will be (Zech. 6:11-15). Those who sin unintentionally will take their offering to the temple in order to make atonement for their sin. The sin is not laid up in the temple for a later day and a second sacrifice, but is instead taken in by the animal's blood and then immediately taken away by Jesus' blood. The manifest glory of God will be present in a far more remarkable way than in Moses' day (Rev. 21:9-22:5), and people will not so easily find themselves sinning. Mortals at the beginning of the millennium (as opposed to at the end - Rev. 20:8) will also be as rare as the precious gold of Ophir (Isa. 13:12), so I imagine most will dwell in and around Israel (Isa. 2:2-4; Zech. 8:20-23; 14:16-19).

The confusion comes when you try to mix the OT with the NT I think...the old covenant with the new. Christ did away with the old and now we have the new, so physically we do not have to do anything...just ask for His forgiveness.

Matthew 26:28
For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 14:24
And He said to them, “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.
Luke 22:20
Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

Having been pre-trib (pre-mill) myself before..raised that way, I think most believe its the antichrist that commands the sacrifices start again...rebuilds the temple and starts the animal sacrifices again. Not Jesus! Never heard of the view point of Jesus ever wanting such a thing ...why would He when scriptures clearly tell us His ONE sacrifice was enough to cover the sins of the world...past, present and future....

God bless

slightlypuzzled
Jun 2nd 2008, 03:19 PM
If you follow the logic of the writer of Hebrews, the old covenant cannot stand for us, since Jesus, as our High Priest, could not have been such under the old one. His covenant was made by Himself with His own blood, and was shown to be complete by both His resurrection and His seat at the right hand of God. The arguments presented by the writer of Hebrews elucidate these points.....

Hebrews 11:

11If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. 13He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17For it is declared:
"You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek."[a]
18The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

20And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:
"The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
'You are a priest forever.' "[b] 22Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

23Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25Therefore he is able to save completely[c] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

26Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

wombat
Jun 2nd 2008, 03:38 PM
Hello, everyone! I posted this comment in a different thread with Scriptures to go along with it, but I can't locate that post at the moment. I'll do a better search for it later today and see if I can put a link to it here. Basically, what I said in that post was that, after Armageddon, there will be survivors. There will be those who had not given their lives to Christ, and so they did not have their sins atoned for by His blood. The believers in Christ have already been taken out of the world (whether pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib as it may be), and we have our resurrection bodies and reign with Christ over the nations. Christ has begun to set up His millennial kingdom, with its royal center in Jerusalem. The Israelites become the priests of God and make sacrifices for the entire world that didn't have the covering of Christ. All the nations are required to come to Jerusalem every year to worship the Lord.

wpm
Jun 2nd 2008, 04:59 PM
Hello, everyone! I posted this comment in a different thread with Scriptures to go along with it, but I can't locate that post at the moment. I'll do a better search for it later today and see if I can put a link to it here. Basically, what I said in that post was that, after Armageddon, there will be survivors. There will be those who had not given their lives to Christ, and so they did not have their sins atoned for by His blood. The believers in Christ have already been taken out of the world (whether pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib as it may be), and we have our resurrection bodies and reign with Christ over the nations. Christ has begun to set up His millennial kingdom, with its royal center in Jerusalem. The Israelites become the priests of God and make sacrifices for the entire world that didn't have the covering of Christ. All the nations are required to come to Jerusalem every year to worship the Lord.

But Christ's sacrifice is the final sacrifice for sin - final. How can you introduce others for sin?

Hebrews 10:4 tells us, "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." Here we see the inferiority of the old covenant described. It couldn’t remove sin. It couldn’t remove guilt. It was imperfect. Under it, “every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God. (Hebrews 10:11-12).

Hebrews 9:26 tells us,“now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” In doing this, we are “sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:10).

Paul

ShirleyFord
Jun 2nd 2008, 05:19 PM
I've been wrestling with this for years, and every few months revise my conclusion. What bothers me is that I see clearly in the word that during the millennium will be sin offerings commanded by Jesus Himself for the atonement of sins. I refuse to compromise what the word plainly says, spiritualizing it away, yet I deny the simple and common answer that they are memorial sacrifices (since it is equally straight forward that the offerings do something). And, pretty much the only reason I've found anyone to be Amil is because of this Scriptural paradox! Here's my latest thoughts. Let me know what you think (and Pre-mils, please give me feedback as well). Thanks!

1) Jesus' blood is sufficient to atone for the sins of the entire world (1 John 2:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:2;&version=31;)).

2) However, Jesus only makes atonement for those sins brought before Him (1 John 1:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%201:9;&version=31;)).

3) The two goats on the Day of Atonement were considered one sacrifice (Lev. 16:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016:5;&version=50;)) for the sins the people grieved over (v.31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016:31;&version=50;)).

4) In "millennial" prophecies, there is no mention of the Day of Atonement (though other Jewish feast days are, as are sacrifices).

5) Jesus' blood was greater than the offerings of bulls and goats made on the Day of Atonement (Heb. 9:11-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:11-15;&version=50;)).

6) The daily sin offerings were heaped up into the temple throughout the year, and the Day of Atonement cleansed the temple.

7) Jesus, our High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, cleansed the temple in heaven with His own blood once for all (Heb. 9:23-26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:23-26;&version=50;)).

8) And yet, Scripture tells us Jesus will forever dwell in a temple in Jerusalem (Eze. 43:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2043:7;&version=50;)), commanding sin offerings (vv.19-27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2043:19-27;&version=50;)).

9) There will be people in the millennium without resurrected bodies (Isa. 65:20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2065:20;&version=50;); 66:19-21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2066:19-21;&version=50;); Zech. 14:16-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%2014:16-19;&version=50;); Rev. 19:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2019:15;&version=50;); 20:7-9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:7-10;&version=50;); etc).

10) These will bring their sins into the temple by animal sacrifice to be atoned by Jesus' blood (Ps. 51:17-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2051:17-19;&version=50;); 118:26-27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20118:26-27;&version=50;); Isa. 56:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2056:7;&version=50;)).

Basically, what I'm claiming here, is that Jesus' sacrifice (as put forth in the book of Hebrews) was once for all, in a similar yet greater way as the Day of Atonement was once a year for all. His death was not a picture of the daily sin and trespass offerings made by individuals, but only of the offering made on the Day of Atonement by the high priest. (True, this offering was not by use of a lamb; however, Jesus being called "the slain Lamb" more likely refers to either Isa. 53 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2053;&version=50;) or Ex. 12-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2012-13;&version=50;).) And because the Day of Atonement was the only day when all the sins (having been heaped up in the temple throughout the year) would be atoned for and removed from their midst, so too Jesus' expiatory death atones for all sins laid up in heaven's temple, taking them away that they are remembered no more.

Presently there is no earthly temple in Jerusalem in which to perform sacrifices for sin. However, in the millennium, there will be (Zech. 6:11-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%206:11-15;&version=50;)). Those who sin unintentionally will take their offering to the temple in order to make atonement for their sin. The sin is not laid up in the temple for a later day and a second sacrifice, but is instead taken in by the animal's blood and then immediately taken away by Jesus' blood. The manifest glory of God will be present in a far more remarkable way than in Moses' day (Rev. 21:9-22:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021:9-22:5;&version=50;)), and people will not so easily find themselves sinning. Mortals at the beginning of the millennium (as opposed to at the end - Rev. 20:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:8;&version=50;)) will also be as rare as the precious gold of Ophir (Isa. 13:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2013:12;&version=50;)), so I imagine most will dwell in and around Israel (Isa. 2:2-4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%202:2-4;&version=50;); Zech. 8:20-23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%208:20-23;&version=50;); 14:16-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%2014:16-19;&version=50;)).

To me, a Gentile, this makes sense. If you're a Messianic Jew, definitely comment on this! - Lk.11

Luke,

What makes no sense to me is that some Gentiles in the Church have adopted the messianic hope of phariseeism/judaism in an earthly millennial reign of the Jews Messiah with a rebuilt temple to offer sin sacrifices. Jews don't believe they can please God and have his blessings without the offering of sin sacrifices. This is against Christ and His work at Calvary.

Nihil Obstat
Jun 2nd 2008, 05:52 PM
Christ is the final sacrifice for sin - there are no more.

Hebrews 10:18 says, “there is no more offering for sin.”

Hebrews 10:26 says, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.”

What must be kept at the forefront is that Christ's sacrifice was as the Day of Atonement's sacrifice was. However, Christ's blood was better than that of the bull and goats on the Day of Atonement, as it was His own, and without sin. Before, every year there was the reminder of sins, and so were ever on the people's conscience. However, now in Christ, those sins placed in the temple are remitted, and so there is no longer a yearly offering for sin, because Christ's blood cleanses the people's conscience from dead works, and the heavenly temple. (And I think you accidentally took Heb. 10:26 out of context, which is why I'm not commenting on that verse.)


Christ is man's only substitute for sin. Why would we need other substitutes for sin? Surely this is a serious assault upon the merits and value of the Cross. Christ is the final sacrifice for sin. Christ has made that one final satisfactory sacrifice for sin. The old ordinances were nailed to the tree with Christ. The old covenant was removed with the introduction of the new.

Yes, for sins to no longer be remembered amongst His corporate people, Christ is man's only expiation for sins. There are no other "substitutes" for sin, because sin and trespass offerings did not cause the sins to be removed, but only covered. On the Day of Atonement, the temple was cleansed, and the people's sins removed from their midst where God dwelt. Yet this was done annually, and so each year the people gathered and mourned for the sins they committed that year. Their conscience was never made clean, because their sin was ever before them. But because Christ's blood was better than that of the bull and goats on the Day of Atonement, now this feast is no longer necessary. However, when there is a temple again in Jerusalem and God's glory rests there, daily sacrifices and offerings will continue - Scripture is plain and to be taken literally. The sins brought into the temple are those forgotten by God; and so how do they come into the temple? By the blood of a sacrificial animal (or even fine flour for the very poor - Lev. 5:11-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%205:11-13&version=50)). Jesus brought an end to the Day of Atonement's sacrifice and offering (Dan. 9:27a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%209:27;&version=50;)), but where does it say He brought an end the daily sacrifices and offerings brought by individuals seeking a right standing before God?


We should let Scripture speak for itself. Colossians 2:14 plainly declares, speaking of these animal sacrifices, “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.”

Q. When did/will the "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances" occur?

A. Christ "took it out of the way" by "nailing it to his cross.”

These ordinances embraced the old covenant civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical law. They were finished at the cross.

When Christ made that final sacrifice for sin He satisfied all God’s holy demands for sin and uncleanness and thus Christ became the final propitiation and substitution for the sinner. Ephesians 2:15 also says,“Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.”

Both Eph. 2:15-16 and Col. 2:13-14 are about the one new man reality, and how both Jews and Gentiles come to the Father through the Son by the Spirit. It's about being born again into God's family, not about Jews suddenly forsaking their Jewishness, or Gentiles their Gentile-ness (Acts 15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015;&version=50;)). Jesus was born a Jew and will forever remain a Jew. I was born Gentile and will forever remain Gentile. Becoming a son or daughter in our heavenly Father's house is not by observing ordinances - that's all these two passages mean. What they don't mean is that there'll never be another temple standing in Jerusalem, or that the priests won't sacrifice animals to atone for sins. This is why Paul follows his passage about the work of the cross by writing, "So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ" (Col. 2:16-17).


You say it is not done away with. Scripture describes the old covenant sacrificial system as “that which is done away” (2 Corinthians 3:11). I choose to run with Scripture. It tells us, the “vail is done away in Christ” (2 Corinthians 3:14). Whether agree or not, Hebrews 10:9 confirms, “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.”

Yet both of these passages do not say that the old is done away with, do they? Rather, they both agree that it "is passing away" (2 Cor. 3:7, 11, 13) and "becoming obsolete and growing old... ready to vanish away" (Heb. 8:13), but not finished as you say.

Great posts so far! Thanks everyone for staying on topic, though I would rather people wouldn't do the whole, "Yeah, what he / she said" thing, as that doesn't serve the thread for the best. If you like what someone wrote but have nothing to add yourself, just PM them or Rep them. Sweet. - Lk.11

moonglow
Jun 2nd 2008, 05:59 PM
Luke,

What makes no sense to me is that some Gentiles in the Church have adopted the messianic hope of phariseeism/judaism in an earthly millennial reign of the Jews Messiah with a rebuilt temple to offer sin sacrifices. Jews don't believe they can please God and have his blessings without the offering of sin sacrifices. This is against Christ and His work at Calvary.

Right you are Shirley..and the thing is, this is a horrible, hateful thing to want to do to the Jews! Why do people not realize if this were to happen...a third temple build...the antichrist or anyone starting sacrifices again is first the worse thing anyone could do to Jesus. Talk about an insult, a slap in the face, a total rejection of the work He did on the cross! Oh my gosh..I would not want to be under the wrath of God for that one! Second...look at what the Jews are being lead into? While Christian rallying on!! "Sure let us help you build this satanic temple so this man as satan can fool you and then turn on you and slaughter you in a few years....yea!" how awful is that?????

I read an article on this one time that explained what some of these Christians are doing in Israel in helping and supporting the Jews towards their goal in rebuilding the temple that explain much better the I ever could how truly horrible this was and hateful! Instead of trying to lead them to Christ through witnessing to them they are actually trying to hand these people over to the devil himself! THAT is what it boils down too! These Christians are NOT thinking about the poor Jews at all but only using them as a means to an end by getting the temple build so Jesus will return...never mind that a horrible war would have to happen first to remove the Islamic temple first where many would die...never mind satan (they believe) is behind this...I mean gee wizz, they are doing the work of the devil themselves! If they got the temple build, they would ..what? welcome the antichrist in to sit in the throne of the temple? All the while thinking they are somehow going to be safe and saved from what is coming? Talk about a strong delusion!

Maybe they justify it to themselves saying, 'well not everyone can be saved quoting the gate is narrow and few find it'...and 'its for the glory of God if some die'...and 'well these people rejected Jesus...so its not our fault'. Who knows what they say to themselves to justify these madness. But to think they can actually do the work of satan and be saved themselves? I don't think so.....

God bless

The Village Idiot
Jun 2nd 2008, 06:03 PM
and as the dividing wall broken down in Jesus' body is to be built higher and stronger than ever, have you considered that OTHER aspects of Christ's work may be temporary as well--like our salvation, perhaps?

You may not want to "spiritualize away" the Scriptures, but I wouldn't be in a rush to "carnalize" them away either.


"We speak not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1Co 2:13-14).

moonglow
Jun 2nd 2008, 06:07 PM
and as the dividing wall broken down in Jesus' body is to be built higher and stronger than ever, have you considered that OTHER aspects of Christ's work may be temporary as well--like our salvation, perhaps?

You may not want to "spiritualize away" the Scriptures, but I wouldn't be in a rush to "carnalize" them away either.

"We speak not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1Co 2:13-14).

This bears repeating and I bolded the scriptures you posted...sometimes people overlook quotes...especially at the end of a post thinking its someones signature...just want to make sure this one isn't missed..;)

God bless

Nihil Obstat
Jun 2nd 2008, 06:10 PM
...have you considered that OTHER aspects of Christ's work may be temporary as well--like our salvation, perhaps?

You may not want to "spiritualize away" the Scriptures, but I wouldn't be in a rush to "carnalize" them away either.

When Paul used "flesh" and "spirit", he was most often speaking of kingdoms, not the make up of our being. As for our salvation, no it is not secure in and of itself. Any covenant can be broken, but God will never break His covenant - people fall away from the faith when *they* break covenant with God.

markedward
Jun 2nd 2008, 06:13 PM
However, when there is a temple again in Jerusalem and God's glory rests there, daily sacrifices and offerings will continue - Scripture is plain and to be taken literally.


Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest [Jesus] had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.The author of Hebrews specifically compares the daily sacrifices to Christ's one sacrifice "for all time" and says that the daily sacrifices "can never take away sins" while Christ's sacrifice does.

Hebrews says both the annual sacrifices (10:3-4) and the daily sacrifices (10:12) cannot take away sins.

Nihil Obstat
Jun 2nd 2008, 06:22 PM
The author of Hebrews specifically compares the daily sacrifices to Christ's one sacrifice "for all time" and says that the daily sacrifices "can never take away sins" while Christ's sacrifice does.

Hebrews says both the annual sacrifices (10:3-4) and the daily sacrifices (10:12) cannot take away sins.

But I'm agreeing that daily sacrifices don't take away sins...

markedward
Jun 2nd 2008, 06:30 PM
But I'm agreeing that daily sacrifices don't take away sins...If you agree that the daily sacrifices don't take away sins, why do you think they'll be performed for eternity?


and where are the daily sacrifices compared to His one sacrifice?... I just showed the verse that does.


Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.This is describing the daily sacrifices.


But when this priest [Jesus] had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.The previous statement is immediately followed by this one, which describes Christ's one sacrifice.

The author first compares the annual sacrifices (10:3-4) to the one sacrifice and how they are worthless. He then compares the daily sacrificies (10:12) to the one sacrifice and how they are worthless.

You agree that the comparison of the annual sacrifices to the one sacrifice means that the annual sacrifices are done away with because they are worthless. Consistently, that means that the comparison of the daily sacrifices to the one sacrifice means that the daily sacrifices are done away with because they are worthless.

wpm
Jun 2nd 2008, 06:33 PM
The sins brought into the temple are those forgotten by God; and so how do they come into the temple? By the blood of a sacrificial animal (or even fine flour for the very poor - Lev. 5:11-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%205:11-13&version=50)). Jesus brought an end to the Day of Atonement's sacrifice and offering (Dan. 9:27a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%209:27;&version=50;)), but where does it say He brought an end the daily sacrifices and offerings brought by individuals seeking a right standing before God?


This does not make sense. My last post covers this and shows how God's whole redemptive plan is concentrated wholly and solely in Christ. His perfect sacrifice annulled every other blood sacrifice (whether yearly or daily). You are trying to resurrect something that God has eternally abolished at the cross.

If God has forgot about a sin then why are you advocating an additional imperfect blood sacrifice for sin that brings a remembrance of sin? How can you add to the cross? Surely this undermines the efficacy of His atonement.

In the old covenant “sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.”(Hebrews 10:3)

Remember, in the new covenant God promises, “their sins and iniquities will I remember no more”(Hebrews 8:12, 10:17).

There is remembrance in the old covenant, whereas there is none under the new.

There are only 2 peoples in life - those redeemed by the blood of Jesus and those not.

What believers do you consider are not covered by the blood of Jesus? What believer's sin is not covered by the blood of Jesus?

Paul

Clifton
Jun 2nd 2008, 06:38 PM
If we are to accept the Book of Revelation, there will be no "physical" Temple (constructed by earthly human hands) in The so-called Millennium age and in the Heavenly Jerusalem which descends from Heaven (Revelation 21:10). Revelation 21:22 is one of the verses pertaining to the Millennium Age, and pertains to what descends in 21:10 (as opposed to the New Jerusalem, The final state and The Eternal Abode of which its descension is noted in 21:2). Verses referring to the Millennium Age are 21:9-22:2, 14-15, 17, but the vision of the glorified martyrs who reign with Christ are noted in 20:4-6 (verse 20:4 is fragmented).

But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty is its temple, also the Lamb.
Revelation 21:22 Complete Apostles' Bible

But I guess that is not to say another Earthly Temple may be constructed before The Millennium. But that would seem MOOT to me - unless by then we will have something like Star Trek Transporters.:P

Blessings.

moonglow
Jun 2nd 2008, 06:59 PM
I've had several posts deleted; it's frustrating because I'm unable to contact this person by private messages. This post may very well go the way of the rest, and there won't be a thing I can do about it.

But I think that we're asking whether Christ's work is not itself temporal in nature. We can give lip-service to the premise that God will never break his word; but some relegate doctrinal truths to particular periods, depending on how God is acting at that point in time. The question is not whether God would "break" a commitment; the question is whether that administration of grace might not be put aside while the Almighty tries something different.

I think that such discussions erode the ability of some to believe God's word. I think that such discussions raise questions in the mind of some, for example, as to whether justification by faith is a doctrine for all people at all times. I think that people are shocked to read of what to them looks like a second humiliation of the now glorified Christ. And although they may not say so--I think that some people are wondering whether they are reading heresy, and that some posts should be reviewed for their orthodoxy.

If the above doesn't see this screed deleted, consider that the duty of ecclesiastical discipline is laid upon all church councils that would be faithful to Jesus Christ. And if such doctrines were spoken in my church, I suspect that in short order, you would see people standing before council and being admonished against speaking such things or be barred from the Lord's Table, and (if they presist) in excommunication from the church.

I would suggest that there is some need for a broader assembly of the Church for the purpose of resolving a constellation of related beliefs, so that the faith can be confirmed and the church strengthened. The church has always defined her faith in the context of the rejection of heresies. Perhaps it is time to do so again.

Now delete away!

VI...you need to go to your control panel and turn on your private messaging...I just tried it to see why you couldn't contact the moderate in question and its because yours is turned off. Look it the upper left hand corner of this screen for "User CP" and click on it...this takes you to your control panel with a number of options...your PM is turned off you need to turn it on...Or go to the main board and scroll down until you find 'chat to mods'...its a private forum where you can post and no one but the mods and admin can see your post and ask why your posts are being deleted. Otherwise once you turn your PM on then you should be able to PM the mod on this form.

God bless

wpm
Jun 2nd 2008, 07:00 PM
When Paul used "flesh" and "spirit", he was most often speaking of kingdoms, not the make up of our being. As for our salvation, no it is not secure in and of itself. Any covenant can be broken, but God will never break His covenant - people fall away from the faith when *they* break covenant with God.

How long is the eternal life within the believer?

Temporal or eternal?

Paul

Nihil Obstat
Jun 2nd 2008, 07:08 PM
If you agree that the daily sacrifices don't take away sins, why do you think they'll be performed for eternity?

Not eternity; just for the millennial reign of Christ. After the Great White Throne judgment, there will be no more death or sin - no more sins to atone for, no more animals as offerings.

Nihil Obstat
Jun 2nd 2008, 07:10 PM
How long is the eternal life within the believer?

Temporal or eternal?

Paul

Eternal life is to know God (John 17:3). We have been given this promise, but we must obtain that promise in this life in order that in the age to come we would receive the promise. This language is used throughout Hebrews.

Nihil Obstat
Jun 2nd 2008, 07:11 PM
If we are to accept the Book of Revelation, there will be no "physical" Temple (constructed by earthly human hands) in The so-called Millennium age and in the Heavenly Jerusalem which descends from Heaven (Revelation 21:10). Revelation 21:22 is one of the verses pertaining to the Millennium Age, and pertains to what descends in 21:10 (as opposed to the New Jerusalem, The final state and The Eternal Abode of which its descension is noted in 21:2). Verses referring to the Millennium Age are 21:9-22:2, 14-15, 17, but the vision of the glorified martyrs who reign with Christ are noted in 20:4-6 (verse 20:4 is fragmented).

But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty is its temple, also the Lamb.
Revelation 21:22 Complete Apostles' Bible

But I guess that is not to say another Earthly Temple may be constructed before The Millennium. But that would seem MOOT to me - unless by then we will have something like Star Trek Transporters.:P

Blessings.

There's no temple in the New Jerusalem, but what of on earth...?

moonglow
Jun 2nd 2008, 07:14 PM
Our eternal life starts the minute we become born again Spirit filled believers! Not sometime in the future...and not after we die either.

John 3:16

God bless

Nihil Obstat
Jun 2nd 2008, 07:15 PM
Please don't drown me with posts! I'm only one man, and I'm watching my ten month old girl right now. The shorter the better, and the least amount of posts between yours and mine the better. I don't want to miss any of your responses, but family comes first, know what I mean?

slightlypuzzled
Jun 2nd 2008, 07:21 PM
...but family comes first, know what I mean?
__________________


That is the wisest thing I have heard in a long time.....;)

ShirleyFord
Jun 2nd 2008, 07:39 PM
Right you are Shirley..and the thing is, this is a horrible, hateful thing to want to do to the Jews! Why do people not realize if this were to happen...a third temple build...the antichrist or anyone starting sacrifices again is first the worse thing anyone could do to Jesus. Talk about an insult, a slap in the face, a total rejection of the work He did on the cross! Oh my gosh..I would not want to be under the wrath of God for that one! Second...look at what the Jews are being lead into? While Christian rallying on!! "Sure let us help you build this satanic temple so this man as satan can fool you and then turn on you and slaughter you in a few years....yea!" how awful is that?????

I read an article on this one time that explained what some of these Christians are doing in Israel in helping and supporting the Jews towards their goal in rebuilding the temple that explain much better the I ever could how truly horrible this was and hateful! Instead of trying to lead them to Christ through witnessing to them they are actually trying to hand these people over to the devil himself! THAT is what it boils down too! These Christians are NOT thinking about the poor Jews at all but only using them as a means to an end by getting the temple build so Jesus will return...never mind that a horrible war would have to happen first to remove the Islamic temple first where many would die...never mind satan (they believe) is behind this...I mean gee wizz, they are doing the work of the devil themselves! If they got the temple build, they would ..what? welcome the antichrist in to sit in the throne of the temple? All the while thinking they are somehow going to be safe and saved from what is coming? Talk about a strong delusion!

Maybe they justify it to themselves saying, 'well not everyone can be saved quoting the gate is narrow and few find it'...and 'its for the glory of God if some die'...and 'well these people rejected Jesus...so its not our fault'. Who knows what they say to themselves to justify these madness. But to think they can actually do the work of satan and be saved themselves? I don't think so.....

God bless

Julie,

In my ignorance as a dispensationalist/premiller I believed those who said that if Israel had her temple built, it would cause the rapture to occur. I sent the little money I could rake and scrape to these Jewish organizations to get Jews moved to Israel and reinstating the Levitical priesthood and rebuilding the third temple. Then I found out what I was really supporting. I was not allowing any Jews to become a part of the Church and be saved eternally from their sins through the blood of Jesus. I was not supporting the Jews at all but in my ignorance keeping the gospel away from the Jews. As soon as I saw from the word of God what I was doing, I stopped my sin and repented. And now I speak out against such.

Besides, where does it say that a third rebuilt temple is the sign of the rapture?

Nowhere.

Clifton
Jun 2nd 2008, 07:42 PM
There's no temple in the New Jerusalem, but what of on earth...?

Not in the New (Kainos) Jerusalem (which is The Eternal Abode beyond the Millennium), nor in the Heavenly Jerusalem ("the beloved city") that will be in the Millennium, which was the one I referred to.

I just don't see any "physical" Temple constructed by earthly human hands before, or "for" the Millennium (and since a Heavenly Jerusalem comes down to Earth, 21:10, well, that settles that). Consider the population and traveling. How many times would a person get to go to such an Earthly Temple, or even Jerusalem, in their lifetime? There would be very few that get to see it. If an Earthly does get built, it is gonna to be displaced anyway with the Heavenly Jerusalem for the Millennium Age, then, after that, descends the New Jerusalem, (an idiom for the Eternal Abode) which one of a higher nature - its descension is referenced in 21:2 (though it comes after the one mentioned later, in 21:10).

Blessings.

NMKeith
Jun 2nd 2008, 07:46 PM
So how can you say that this earth is not eternal? (And please let's do our best to stay on topic.)

Here are some Scriptures that can prove an eternal earth..

Psa 104:5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Psa/Psa104.html#5) Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

Psa 78:69 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Psa/Psa078.html#69) And he built his sanctuary like high palaces, like the earth which he hath established for ever.

Psa 119:90 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Psa/Psa119.html#90) Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth forever.

Ecc 1:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Ecc/Ecc001.html#4) One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

moonglow
Jun 2nd 2008, 08:08 PM
Julie,

In my ignorance as a dispensationalist/premiller I believed those who said that if Israel had her temple built, it would cause the rapture to occur. I sent the little money I could rake and scrape to these Jewish organizations to get Jews moved to Israel and reinstating the Levitical priesthood and rebuilding the third temple. Then I found out what I was really supporting. I was not allowing any Jews to become a part of the Church and be saved eternally from their sins through the blood of Jesus. I was not supporting the Jews at all but in my ignorance keeping the gospel away from the Jews. As soon as I saw from the word of God what I was doing, I stopped my sin and repented. And now I speak out against such.

Besides, where does it say that a third rebuilt temple is the sign of the rapture?

Nowhere.

I know what you mean...when I was pre-trib I also supported the rebuilding of the temple though I didn't have any money to send or I might have! I also didn't really look at what this could mean! I only looked pass everything to the returning of Jesus...or the rapture, which in my view there was pretty much the same thing (though before the trib!..I know doesn't make any sense now, but then to me it did...at least I thought so)...but anyway it was when I read in this article what my support was setting up the Jews for in such a bold very graphic way, that it shocked me enough to stop and think about exactly what I was wishing for! I wasn't just innocently wishing for the return of Christ...I mean who could think that was bad...but all the stuff leading up to it (from this point of view). Basically handing over the Jews to the devil...taking them by the hand and leading them right up to him and handing them over! :o I just wasn't seeing the big picture at all! I am very ashamed of this too...just disregarding other human beings in this way and it never dawning on me that was exactly what I would be doing. Very stunning to realize this...:(

God bless

quiet dove
Jun 2nd 2008, 08:11 PM
Julie,

In my ignorance as a dispensationalist/premiller I believed those who said that if Israel had her temple built, it would cause the rapture to occur. I sent the little money I could rake and scrape to these Jewish organizations to get Jews moved to Israel and reinstating the Levitical priesthood and rebuilding the third temple. Then I found out what I was really supporting. I was not allowing any Jews to become a part of the Church and be saved eternally from their sins through the blood of Jesus. I was not supporting the Jews at all but in my ignorance keeping the gospel away from the Jews. As soon as I saw from the word of God what I was doing, I stopped my sin and repented. And now I speak out against such.

Besides, where does it say that a third rebuilt temple is the sign of the rapture?

Nowhere.

I'm still pre trib, and I disagree with that one too! That is just flat, IMHO, not solid teaching, and I'm pre trib (which I know you already know-:hug:)

And while I do believe that the temple will be rebuilt, I find it deceptive to promote it. I believe our focus should be strictly on trying to 1) be a faithful witness, showing the love of Christ, and 2)be a good witness trying to spread the Gospel. And I have no problem with supporting Israel in terms of the well being for this nation, however

If the Gospel is rejected and the temple built that is the all taking it's course, but I do find it misleading for Christians to support it's building. I think that Israel should be free to makes their own decisions in regard to the temple, but that it is misleading for Christians to tell Jews that this temple needs to be rebuilt for their Messiah to return because that just sets them up to receive the wrong one.

As far as the rapture goes, there is not one single verse anywhere stating one single thing that is even a clue to when it may happen. The only clues are based on prophecies about the Second Advent and the GT, but nothing is said, like building this temple for instance, that will "cause" the rapture to happen. At least not that I am aware of.

The Village Idiot
Jun 2nd 2008, 08:28 PM
"...the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple" (Re 21:22).

The way I read it, when Jesus comes--he does so rading the chariot/cloud/Glory/Throne that is the center of the New Jerusalem that descends to earth.

markedward
Jun 2nd 2008, 08:42 PM
Not eternity; just for the millennial reign of Christ. After the Great White Throne judgment, there will be no more death or sin - no more sins to atone for, no more animals as offerings.I may be mistaken, but didn't you previously say that you believed there would be five temples total? The third for the antichrist to desecrate, the fourth for the millenial kingdom, and the fifth for eternity (and that the fourth and fifth temples would be "merged" together).

If you did indeed say this (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1651622&postcount=13), what would be the purpose of the fifth temple in eternity? The first temple was built for the purpose of giving the daily and annual sacrifices a permanent place to be made. When the first temple was destroyed, the second temple was eventually built, again for the purpose of making the daily and annual sacrifices. In both cases, the temples were dedicated to God through sacrifices, and as a result, God made it holy with His presence.

Scripture states that Christ's sacrifice was "for all time," and that the daily and annual sacrifices are worthless. This makes the purpose of the temple (the place for which the daily and annual sacrifices are performed) also worthless. How could a third temple be made holy if God won't accept the dedication sacrifices (since Christ has now made His one sacrifice "for all time") and as a result, how can it be desecrated if it was never made holy?

The Bible and history testify evidence to this: God was the one who approved of the first temple. When He said He was going to destroy Jerusalem and the temple, He also said He would eventually have Jerusalem and the temple rebuilt.

Not even a full century passed between the first temple's destruction and the second temple's construction.

Then God (through Jesus and John) prophesied the destruction of the second temple. Yet in all of Revelation, there is not a single depiction of another temple, whether it be a third, fourth, or fifth one.

And as history shows, been nearly twenty centuries have passed since the second temple's destruction.

God allowed the first temple to be built, and when it was destroyed He allowed the second temple to be built not even a century later. The fact that there hasn't been a temple for almost two thousand years ought to show that Christ's one and only sacrifice "for all time" was sufficient enough to erase the sins of those who follow Him, sufficient enough that He hasn't allowed for another temple to be built, even after twenty centuries.


There's no temple in the New Jerusalem, but what of on earth...?Three things:

1 - "Jerusalem" was the city where the temple was built. Twice. Likewise, if there is ever another earthly temple, wouldn't it make sense to be built in the city called Jerusalem, even "New" Jerusalem?

2 - The Revelation goes out of its way to say there is no temple. It says that New Jerusalem descends out of heaven... where's it descending to? Earth, of course.

3 - John specifially goes out of his way to say "there is no temple." Trying to turn his words into a technicality of "Oh, he said there wasn't one in New Jerusalem, that doesn't mean there won't be one somewhere else" is just reaching. If there was a new temple somewhere, John would likely have stated as much, but he specifically said that Christ is the "temple." If Christ is the temple, then there is no need for an earthly, physical temple, in which case, when John said "there is no temple" he was speaking about more than just the New Jerusalem. Trying to say otherwise is just splitting hairs.

The Revelation is the final book of prophecy in the Bible. Shouldn't the fact that it doesn't mention a third, fourth, or fifth temple mean something, such as, there won't be a third or fourth or fifth temple?

ShirleyFord
Jun 2nd 2008, 08:58 PM
I know what you mean...when I was pre-trib I also supported the rebuilding of the temple though I didn't have any money to send or I might have! I also didn't really look at what this could mean! I only looked pass everything to the returning of Jesus...or the rapture, which in my view there was pretty much the same thing (though before the trib!..I know doesn't make any sense now, but then to me it did...at least I thought so)...but anyway it was when I read in this article what my support was setting up the Jews for in such a bold very graphic way, that it shocked me enough to stop and think about exactly what I was wishing for! I wasn't just innocently wishing for the return of Christ...I mean who could think that was bad...but all the stuff leading up to it (from this point of view). Basically handing over the Jews to the devil...taking them by the hand and leading them right up to him and handing them over! :o I just wasn't seeing the big picture at all! I am very ashamed of this too...just disregarding other human beings in this way and it never dawning on me that was exactly what I would be doing. Very stunning to realize this...:(

God bless

That's the thing. Dispensationalist leaders don't share the big picture or they didn't with me or I was just too ignorant to understand what it was they were teaching me. They used Scripture and said that those who bless Israel will be blessed. Then they asked, "How do Gentiles bless Israel?"

"By supporting the nation of Israel," was their answer. How do we support them? By helping them to keep the OT law. Well how do we do that?

By helping them to get a third temple rebuilt so they can again offer sin sacrifices so God will bless them again and protect them from them natural enemy nations as He did in the days of King Solemon.

I didn't realize then that the stone temple in the OT and the Levitical priesthood pointed to Jesus. And no one was saved back then except the way Abraham, Noah and the rest of the OT heros of faith were saved back then: By faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for our sins.

Cyberseeker
Jun 2nd 2008, 09:02 PM
Prior to my accepting the 'Realized Millennium' point of view, I believed the 1000 year reign but not as one with temple sacrifices. I humbly suggest that pre-mil believers (if they cant accept amil) reassess their temple ideas and opt for a millennium doctrine that does not glorify animal sacrifice. I don't want to appear too heavy but it is actually blasphemous.

Cyberseeker

Clifton
Jun 2nd 2008, 09:24 PM
If an Earthly does get built, it is gonna to be displaced anyway with the Heavenly Jerusalem for the Millennium Age, then, after that, descends the New Jerusalem, (an idiom for the Eternal Abode) which one of a higher nature - its descension is referenced in 21:2 (though it comes after the one mentioned later, in 21:10).

I made a mistake in my previous post. It said:
If an Earthly does not get built, it is gonna to be displaced anyway with the Heavenly Jerusalem for the Millennium Age...

The negation "not" did not belong there. It should read:

If an Earthly does get built, it is gonna to be displaced anyway with the Heavenly Jerusalem for the Millennium Age,...

I went back and correct that post.

My apologies for any confusion there.:blush:

Blessings.

MailmanGuy
Jun 2nd 2008, 10:25 PM
Let me first state that I'm pre-mill, and reformed.

Among Premillennial theologians, it is assumed that this temple will
be built during the 1000 year reign of Christ on Earth. There is
nothing like it in history, so it's either a future structure, or a
complete anomaly.

The animal sacrifices mentioned in these passages have caused critics
of the Premil view to argue that such sacrifices are done away with in
Christ and therefore, if Israel were indeed to build such a future
temple and begin such sacrifices, it would be a blasphemous thing to
do. However, the Premil advocate would argue that if animal
sacrifices in the OT were "types and shadows" pointing forward to the
sacrifice of Christ, they could equally point backward. Remember that
in the book of Acts Paul went to Jerusalem, took a vow, shaved his
head, and killed an animal as a sacrifice, after Jesus was resurrected
and Paul himself was converted. So, the idea is not completely
without Biblical precedent.

What we must keep in mind when we view such passages is that God's
dealings with Israel must come to a full and satisfactory completion.
And if God chooses to redeem those elements of worship that never
produced righteousness (such as the temple system, priests, the law,
etc.) in such a way that they all redound to His glory, that's fine
with me.

What's certain is that the passages you mentioned at the end of
Ezekiel create a great deal of difficulty for the Amil interpreter.
There is simply no way to adequately spiritualize those chapters in
any sensible fashion. So, I prefer to leave them be, let them say
what they say, and expect God to do everything He has said He is going
to do --- which seems like a much safer approach to me. :-)

Nihil Obstat
Jun 2nd 2008, 10:59 PM
Prior to my accepting the 'Realized Millennium' point of view, I believed the 1000 year reign but not as one with temple sacrifices. I humbly suggest that pre-mil believers (if they cant accept amil) reassess their temple ideas and opt for a millennium doctrine that does not glorify animal sacrifice. I don't want to appear too heavy but it is actually blasphemous.

Cyberseeker

Was it blasphemous when God commanded Peter to break the law and eat unclean animals... (Acts 10:9-16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010:9-16&version=50))?

davidandme
Jun 2nd 2008, 11:22 PM
I personally believe that Christ will come before the millenium. We will spend the millenium in heaven. Christians are part of the spiritual Israel. Every true Christian is of Abrahaam seed. God bless.

Nihil Obstat
Jun 2nd 2008, 11:26 PM
...God's whole redemptive plan is concentrated wholly and solely in Christ. His perfect sacrifice annulled every other blood sacrifice (whether yearly or daily). You are trying to resurrect something that God has eternally abolished at the cross.

If God has forgot about a sin then why are you advocating an additional imperfect blood sacrifice for sin that brings a remembrance of sin? How can you add to the cross? Surely this undermines the efficacy of His atonement.

Jesus' perfect sacrifice did not annul all other sacrifices, but only the Day of Atonement's sacrifices. God did not forget the sins atoned for by daily sacrifices, nor even by the scapegoat did He forget, but the scapegoat was a shadow and was fulfilled by Christ and by His blood the heavenly temple cleansed. Only those sins brought before Him to be cleansed are forgotten. To be forgotten, sins must be brought into the temple. This isn't saying that the cross was insufficient! Hardly! To say that sins could be atoned for without being in the temple would lead to Universal Reconciliation, which compromises God's justice and gravely misunderstands His mercy (as you undoubtedly agree). Christ did His part at the cross; we must do our part to be cleansed as well, or there is a disconnect.


In the old covenant “sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.”(Hebrews 10:3)

Remember, in the new covenant God promises, “their sins and iniquities will I remember no more”(Hebrews 8:12, 10:17).

There is remembrance in the old covenant, whereas there is none under the new.

Yes, in the New Covenant sins are no longer remembered. What sins? Sins that are brought before Him to be cleansed.


There are only 2 peoples in life - those redeemed by the blood of Jesus and those not.

What believers do you consider are not covered by the blood of Jesus? What believer's sin is not covered by the blood of Jesus?

Paul

If you are a believer, sin (intentionally or unintentionally), and do not seek God's forgiveness and a right standing before Him when you are made aware of your sin, then are you covered by His blood? How can you be? Your covenantal relationship with Him has suffered a separation by your own denial to seek the remission of your sin (cp. Heb. 10:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:26;&version=50;)). It is the sins of a believer which are vainly kept "hidden" from God which are not covered by His blood - even those unknown sins once they are made known to us, if not atoned for, keep us from His righteousness.

Lk.11

jewel4Christ
Jun 2nd 2008, 11:43 PM
Hi Shirley, and Moonglow.....


I have been following your conversation.

I was once premill/dispensationalist, too...although it has been a long time, and I cannot really remember what I was taught then about it.

What I would like to know is do you know or have any evidence that this is really being done. I mean, supporting Israel monetarily, and all.


I would like to read those articles...they are shocking!



I would not know how to go about finding them.

Thanks,

peaeandlove...janet

jewel4Christ
Jun 2nd 2008, 11:47 PM
If you are a believer, sin (intentionally or unintentionally), and do not seek God's forgiveness and a right standing before Him when you are made aware of your sin, then are you covered by His blood? How can you be? Your covenantal relationship with Him has suffered a separation by your own denial to seek the remission of your sin (cp. Heb. 10:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:26;&version=50;)). It is the sins of a believer which are vainly kept "hidden" from God which are not covered by His blood - even those unknown sins once they are made known to us, if not atoned for, keep us from His righteousness.

Lk.11If you are a believer, you have been "imputed" with HIS righteousness....and, it is a FREE gift, not earned by your not sinning!


You must not have a right understanding on this yet..Hang in there, it will come.


Also, if you are a believer, the word of God says He no longer imputes sin to you. Would you like to look at those verses?



peaceandlove,

janet

Cyberseeker
Jun 3rd 2008, 12:14 AM
Was it blasphemous when God commanded Peter to break the law and eat unclean animals... (Acts 10:9-16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010:9-16&version=50))?

No it wasn't. If anything it makes the point that the previous Mosaic era was ended.

Let me put it this way. Up and until the end of the times ordained it was disobedient not to perform the regulations given by God to Moses. After the new covenant however, it became blasphemous to continue observing a covenant that had been superseded.

If you want I can present the scriptures (and dates) showing that animal sacrifice was blasphemous after the conclusion of the 'weeks' but I don't want to derail your thread.

Cyber

ShirleyFord
Jun 3rd 2008, 12:22 AM
Jesus' perfect sacrifice did not annul all other sacrifices, but only the Day of Atonement's sacrifices. God did not forget the sins atoned for by daily sacrifices, nor even by the scapegoat did He forget, but the scapegoat was a shadow and was fulfilled by Christ and by His blood the heavenly temple cleansed. Only those sins brought before Him to be cleansed are forgotten. To be forgotten, sins must be brought into the temple. This isn't saying that the cross was insufficient! Hardly! To say that sins could be atoned for without being in the temple would lead to Universal Reconciliation, which compromises God's justice and gravely misunderstands His mercy (as you undoubtedly agree). Christ did His part at the cross; we must do our part to be cleansed as well, or there is a disconnect.





What you are not understanding is this. Jesus is our High Priest after the order of Melchizadec, a heavenly priesthood and not the earthly Levitical priesthood.

Jesus did more at Calvary than fulfill the day of Atonement. The earthly high priest had more to do than work on the yearly day of atonement in atoning for the sins of Israel. It was his job to offer the daily sacrifice, both morning and evening, the weekly sabbath sacrifice, 2 morning sacrifices and 2 evening sacrifices, the other yearly sacrifices on passover, feast of first fruits, feast of trumpets and feast of tabernacles. Also, the 7 year sabbath feast of the land and the 50th yr. feast of Jubilee. Plus all of the other sacrifices in between when a baby was born and the mother was unclean while she had an issue, and those with leprosy.

The priests of the High Priest were allowed to help him but the job of sacrificing for sins was ultimately his job. Jesus showed Himself as our High Priest during His earthly ministry when He healed the sick, cast out demons, opened blind eyes, caused the cripple to walk.

Mark 2:1 And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house.

2 And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them.

3 And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four.

4 And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay.

5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.

6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,

7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?

8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?

9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?

10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)

11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.

12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

Nihil Obstat
Jun 3rd 2008, 01:00 AM
If you are a believer, you have been "imputed" with HIS righteousness....and, it is a FREE gift, not earned by your not sinning!

You must not have a right understanding on this yet..Hang in there, it will come.

Also, if you are a believer, the word of God says He no longer imputes sin to you. Would you like to look at those verses?

peaceandlove,

janet

One in Christ cannot commit sin and leave it unresolved. When one sins, righteousness (a right standing before God and man, relationally) is bruised. Surely you are not saying that you are without sin, or that when you sin you have no need to confess it for it to be cleansed (1 John 1:8-2:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%201:8-2:2&version=50))? His righteousness *is* a free gift, but only so long as we come to Him in love (because He first loved us). And yes, I would like to take a look at those Scriptures. Thank you for your humility; I appreciate it very much! - Lk.11

Nihil Obstat
Jun 3rd 2008, 01:10 AM
Not in the New (Kainos) Jerusalem (which is The Eternal Abode beyond the Millennium), nor in the Heavenly Jerusalem ("the beloved city") that will be in the Millennium, which was the one I referred to.

I just don't see any "physical" Temple constructed by earthly human hands before, or "for" the Millennium (and since a Heavenly Jerusalem comes down to Earth, 21:10, well, that settles that).

I do not see a difference between the New Jerusalem and the Heavenly Jerusalem; they are one and the same. As for an earthly temple during the millennium standing in Jerusalem, see 2 Sam. 7:12-16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%207:12-16;&version=50;); Ps. 51:18-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps.%2051:18-19;&version=50;); 69:35 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps.%2069:35;&version=50;); 102:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps.%20102:16;&version=50;); 132:13-14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps.%20132:13-14;&version=50;); 147:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps.%20147:2;&version=50;); Isa. 56:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa.%2056:7;&version=50;); Jer. 30:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jer.%2030:18;&version=50;); 31:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jer.%2031:4;&version=50;); Eze. 40-48 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2040;&version=50;); Amos 9:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Amos%209:11;&version=50;); Zech. 6:11-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%206:11-15;&version=50;) (for starters, anyway).


Consider the population and traveling. How many times would a person get to go to such an Earthly Temple, or even Jerusalem, in their lifetime? There would be very few that get to see it.

I already did in my opening post. I said:


The manifest glory of God will be present in a far more remarkable way than in Moses' day (Rev. 21:9-22:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021:9-22:5;&version=50;)), and people will not so easily find themselves sinning. Mortals at the beginning of the millennium (as opposed to at the end - Rev. 20:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:8;&version=50;)) will also be as rare as the precious gold of Ophir (Isa. 13:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2013:12;&version=50;)), so I imagine most will dwell in and around Israel (Isa. 2:2-4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%202:2-4;&version=50;); Zech. 8:20-23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%208:20-23;&version=50;); 14:16-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%2014:16-19;&version=50;)).

No prob though; things get missed in this medium all the time.


If an Earthly does get built, it is gonna to be displaced anyway with the Heavenly Jerusalem for the Millennium Age, then, after that, descends the New Jerusalem, (an idiom for the Eternal Abode) which one of a higher nature - its descension is referenced in 21:2 (though it comes after the one mentioned later, in 21:10).

Blessings.

I wouldn't say that it will be displaced, but instead "married" (see Eph. 1:9-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%201:9-10;&version=50;); John 3:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:13;&version=50;); 1:51 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:51;&version=50;)).

Nihil Obstat
Jun 3rd 2008, 01:12 AM
If you want I can present the scriptures (and dates) showing that animal sacrifice was blasphemous after the conclusion of the 'weeks' but I don't want to derail your thread.

No, please do. Thank you for giving your time and energy to this!

jewel4Christ
Jun 3rd 2008, 01:27 AM
One in Christ cannot commit sin and leave it unresolved. When one sins, righteousness (a right standing before God and man, relationally) is bruised. Surely you are not saying that you are without sin, or that when you sin you have no need to confess it for it to be cleansed (1 John 1:8-2:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%201:8-2:2&version=50))? His righteousness *is* a free gift, but only so long as we come to Him in love (because He first loved us). And yes, I would like to take a look at those Scriptures. Thank you for your humility; I appreciate it very much! - Lk.11

No, I am not saying I am without sin...:D I am just saying that He does not impute my sins to me.

We read that here:

Rom 4:5
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 4:6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=4&verse=6&version=kjv#6)
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Rom 4:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=4&verse=7&version=kjv#7)
[Saying], Blessed [are] they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

Rom 4:8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=4&verse=8&version=kjv#8)
Blessed [is] the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.


As for imputed righteousness:

Rom 4:11

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: http://cf.blueletterbible.org/gifs/copyChkboxOff.gifRom 4:22 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=4&v=22&t=KJV#22) And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. http://cf.blueletterbible.org/gifs/copyChkboxOff.gifRom 4:23 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=4&v=23&t=KJV#23) Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; http://cf.blueletterbible.org/gifs/copyChkboxOff.gifRom 4:24 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=4&v=24&t=KJV#24) But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; http://cf.blueletterbible.org/gifs/copyChkboxOff.gifRom 5:13 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=5&v=13&t=KJV#13) (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. http://cf.blueletterbible.org/gifs/copyChkboxOff.gifJam 2:23 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jam&c=2&v=23&t=KJV#23) And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

What this means is that even though we still sin, He no longer SEES or imputes our sins to us, and, even though we cannot be righteouss through works, etc, we are righteouss by faith, through Him freely imputing, or giving us HIS.

He is a wonderful God.


peaceandlove,


janet

moonglow
Jun 3rd 2008, 01:40 AM
Hi Shirley, and Moonglow.....


I have been following your conversation.

I was once premill/dispensationalist, too...although it has been a long time, and I cannot really remember what I was taught then about it.

What I would like to know is do you know or have any evidence that this is really being done. I mean, supporting Israel monetarily, and all.


I would like to read those articles...they are shocking!



I would not know how to go about finding them.

Thanks,

peaeandlove...janet

Yes it is shocking...when a person actually thinks about it...:(

Here are several:
Pre-Trib Research Center (http://www.pre-trib.org/article-view.php?id=244)

Is It Time for The Temple?
In spite of contemporary turmoil, Israel'��s Third Temple will one day be rebuild as Dr. Price and I demonstrated in Ready To Rebuild from Daniel 9:24-27; Matthew 24:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; Revelation 11:1-2; 13:14-��15. Few observers of world events ever thought Israel would become a nation again, but it did occur in 1948. Yet, there will be a rebuilt temple by the middle of the seven-year tribulation in order to facilitate the fulfillment of Bible prophecy.

I have often taught that the long-awaited permission for the Jews to rebuild their Temple will likely be part of the covenant between Antichrist and Israel that starts the seven-year tribulation after the rapture. It appears to me that the Temple will be rebuilt and supervised supernaturally by the two witnesses during the first half of the tribulation. Since one of the two witnesses will most likely be Elijah, this would mean that the ministry of Elijah should tell us more about the ministry of the two witnesses. Malachi 4:4-5 says, "Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. An he will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse." Perhaps the ministry of Elijah, where he will help the Jewish people "get right with God," before the return of the Lord will involve their Third Temple, until commandeered by Antichrist.

Regardless of how the Lord works out the details, His plan will be brought to pass. In the meantime, many of the current events now taking place in and around Jerusalem and the Temple Mount are setting the stage for what will be a string of events that will usher in the second coming of Christ. Meanwhile, the church is looking for the rapture, where Christ will take us in an instance to be with Himself for all eternity. Maranatha!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Temple#Protestant_view
Third Temple
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Protestant view

The dominant view within Protestant Christianity is that animal sacrifices within the Temple were a foreshadowing of the sacrifice Jesus made for the sins of the world, through his death. As such they believe there is no longer a need for the physical temple and its rituals.

Those Protestants who do believe in the importance of a future rebuilt temple (viz.,some dispensationalists) hold that the importance of the sacrificial system shifts to a Memorial of the Cross, given the text of Ezekiel Chapters 39 and following (in addition to Millennial references to the Temple in other Old Testament passages); since Ezekiel explains at length the construction and nature of the Millennial temple, in which Jews will once again hold the priesthood; some others hold that perhaps it was not completely eliminated with Jesus' sacrifice for sin, but is a ceremonial object lesson for confession and forgiveness (somewhat like water baptism and Communion are today); and that such animal sacrifices would still be appropriate for ritual cleansing and for acts of celebration and thanksgiving toward God.

Some dispensationalists believe this will be the case with the Second Coming of Christ when Jesus reigns over earth from the city of Jerusalem.[specify] interprets a passage in the Book of Daniel, Daniel 12:11, as a prophecy that the end of this age will occur shortly after sacrifices are ended in the newly rebuilt temple.[citation needed]

Third Temple World (http://www.thirdtempleworld.com/home.htm)


The Temple Institute (http://www.templeinstitute.org/main.htm)
All who pray for the fulfillment of the Biblical prophecies that promise the reestablishment of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem are invited and welcome to become part of the Temple Institute's vision, and share in these efforts. Please visit our membership page (secure server) for more information about supporting the Temple Institute and member's benefits

Millennial madness (http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9911/millennium.html)

Now I certainly haven't read through all of these...just scanned them a bit...as you can see their views on what will happen if a third temple is built doesn't even agree. One thinks Jesus will sit in the temple itself...another thinks the antichrist...the view vary as much as people do it seems.

God bless

moonglow
Jun 3rd 2008, 01:47 AM
I'm still pre trib, and I disagree with that one too! That is just flat, IMHO, not solid teaching, and I'm pre trib (which I know you already know-:hug:)

And while I do believe that the temple will be rebuilt, I find it deceptive to promote it. I believe our focus should be strictly on trying to 1) be a faithful witness, showing the love of Christ, and 2)be a good witness trying to spread the Gospel. And I have no problem with supporting Israel in terms of the well being for this nation, however

If the Gospel is rejected and the temple built that is the all taking it's course, but I do find it misleading for Christians to support it's building. I think that Israel should be free to makes their own decisions in regard to the temple, but that it is misleading for Christians to tell Jews that this temple needs to be rebuilt for their Messiah to return because that just sets them up to receive the wrong one.

As far as the rapture goes, there is not one single verse anywhere stating one single thing that is even a clue to when it may happen. The only clues are based on prophecies about the Second Advent and the GT, but nothing is said, like building this temple for instance, that will "cause" the rapture to happen. At least not that I am aware of.


Good! Glad to hear you realize this and yes we need to witness to them, but of course we cannot control what others do...WARNING them might be a good thing though...if they will listen.


ShirleyFord
That's the thing. Dispensationalist leaders don't share the big picture or they didn't with me or I was just too ignorant to understand what it was they were teaching me. They used Scripture and said that those who bless Israel will be blessed. Then they asked, "How do Gentiles bless Israel?"

"By supporting the nation of Israel," was their answer. How do we support them? By helping them to keep the OT law. Well how do we do that?

By helping them to get a third temple rebuilt so they can again offer sin sacrifices so God will bless them again and protect them from them natural enemy nations as He did in the days of King Solemon.

I didn't realize then that the stone temple in the OT and the Levitical priesthood pointed to Jesus. And no one was saved back then except the way Abraham, Noah and the rest of the OT heros of faith were saved back then: By faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for our sins.

I didn't even realize this much actually...:( As I said my mind was on Jesus coming back and if the temple had to be built again for that to happen I was all for it...simply not thinking what that would mean to the Jews...:(

God bless

Nihil Obstat
Jun 3rd 2008, 01:48 AM
I may be mistaken, but didn't you previously say that you believed there would be five temples total? The third for the antichrist to desecrate, the fourth for the millennial kingdom, and the fifth for eternity (and that the fourth and fifth temples would be "merged" together).

If you did indeed say this (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1651622&postcount=13), what would be the purpose of the fifth temple in eternity? The first temple was built for the purpose of giving the daily and annual sacrifices a permanent place to be made. When the first temple was destroyed, the second temple was eventually built, again for the purpose of making the daily and annual sacrifices. In both cases, the temples were dedicated to God through sacrifices, and as a result, God made it holy with His presence.

What was the purpose of the temple that was the Garden of Eden before mankind fell? You do realize that the garden was the first temple, do you not? Noah's ark was designed to function as a floating tabernacle. Truthfully, there were more temples spoken of in Scripture than one might imagine. God loves dwelling amongst His people! A temple would have no need of sacrifices when there are no sins to atone for, as atonement for sins was made in order that the glory of God might rest in the midst of the congregation. The purpose of a temple is not so much to atone for sins as it is to corporately commune with and celebrate God in all of His manifested glory!


Scripture states that Christ's sacrifice was "for all time," and that the daily and annual sacrifices are worthless. This makes the purpose of the temple (the place for which the daily and annual sacrifices are performed) also worthless. How could a third temple be made holy if God won't accept the dedication sacrifices (since Christ has now made His one sacrifice "for all time") and as a result, how can it be desecrated if it was never made holy?

If the purpose of a temple is to atone for sins, then yes, temples are worthless. But, that is not their primary purpose, as I said above. A temple is a glorious thing, so long as the people are sincere in their love for God!


The Bible and history testify evidence to this: God was the one who approved of the first temple. When He said He was going to destroy Jerusalem and the temple, He also said He would eventually have Jerusalem and the temple rebuilt.

Not even a full century passed between the first temple's destruction and the second temple's construction.

Then God (through Jesus and John) prophesied the destruction of the second temple. Yet in all of Revelation, there is not a single depiction of another temple, whether it be a third, fourth, or fifth one.

What we're calling the "third" temple, or the "tribulation" temple as I call it, is spoken of or alluded to in Rev. 11:1-2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2011:1-2;&version=50;); 13:11-18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2013:11-18;&version=50;); 17:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2017:16;&version=50;). The "fourth", or "millennial", is in Rev. 2:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%202:27;&version=50;); 11:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2011:15;&version=50;); 12:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2012:5;&version=50;); 19:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2019:15;&version=50;); 20:4-6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:4-6;&version=50;), 9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:9;&version=50;). The "fifth" is mentioned throughout the book: see Rev. 1:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%201:13;&version=50;); 4:1-5:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%204:1-5:14;&version=50;); 6:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%206:9;&version=50;); 7:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%207:2;&version=50;); 8:3-5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%208:3-5;&version=50;); 11:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2011:19;&version=50;); 12:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2012:5;&version=50;); 13:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2013:6;&version=50;); 15:5-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2015:5-8;&version=50;); 16:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2016:17;&version=50;); 19:1-7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2019:1-7;&version=50;); 20:11-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:11-15;&version=50;). And there are probably more that I missed, in addition to the numerous passages in the other books of the Bible.

Lk.11

Clifton
Jun 3rd 2008, 02:03 AM
I do not see a difference between the New Jerusalem and the Heavenly Jerusalem; they are one and the same.

Fascinating - I heard the same last week. However, in the text and the related texts, they are definitely not the same. How does the "one and the same" thing descend to Earth TWICE out of Heaven??? Makes no sense, even looking at it in English. I'm eager to hear this. Of course, the NEW Jerusalem is mentioned first as descending in the traditional order of the text of Revelation, and the Heavenly Jerusalem (the beloved city, and as I recall, the Holy City on the Holy Mountain, or something like that, in ancient Hebrew Literature), is mentioned later as descending upon the Earth, though it is mentioned second as descending, and that is the one for the Millennium;

So, the first mentioned is the last and final one, and the second one mention is for the Millennium. Kind of reminds ya of the saying, the first is last and the last is first.:)
***
Revelation 21:9-22:2, 14-15, 17. Vision of the Heavenly Jerusalem, which descends from Heaven and settles on the ruined site of the earthly Jerusalem. This Heavenly City is at once the seat of the Messianic Kingdom, the abode of the glorified martyrs, and the center of the evangelizing agencies of the surviving nations on the earth, during the millennial period. Though it is not stated, we must conclude that alike the glorified martyrs and the Heavenly Jerusalem are withdrawn from the earth before the final judgment.

And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the set-apart Yerushalayim, descending out of the heaven from Elohim,
Revelation 21:10 The Scriptures 1998+
***
That's the Millennium one.

AFTER THE MILLENNIUM:

Revelation 21:5a, 4d, 5b; 21:1-4abc.; and 22:3-5. Declaration by God that the former things have passed away and that He creates all things new. Forthwith The Seer sees the new heaven and the new earth and the New[2] Jerusalem coming down, adorned as a bride for her husband. God tabernacles with men. No more grief or pain or tears or death. All the faithful are to reign with Christ for ever and ever (22:5), whereas in the Millennial Kingdom only the risen martyrs were to reign for a thousand years.

Footnote:
[2] “New” = Even the Heavenly City of 21:10, which had been withdrawn from the earth before the Judgment with Christ and the saints, is renewed or displaced by one of a higher nature.

And I, Yoḥanan, saw the set-apart city, renewed Yerushalayim, coming down out of the heaven from Elohim, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Revelation 21:2 The Scriptures 1998+

That's the Eternal One.

Actually, the same primary Greek word, "καταβαίνω", (Strong's # G2597) underlies the English "descending" and "coming down" here. BTW, "Set-apart" = "Holy".

***

So, I await your logic of how you have one Jerusalem, for the Millennium, fused with another, the New one, which BTW, is an idiom of the Seer for the Eternal Abode (in doing this, you also have the millennium and eternal abode fused), and how "this one and the same" of yours descends twice. Where is the ascension of this "this one and the same", and "why" was it ascended? What textual support have ya for this?:hmm:

Realize that without a knowledge of The Pseudepigrapha it would be impossible to understand The Seer, John The Presbyter. In those days such literature was common place for the people. Revelation is modeled on a lot of the Pseudepigrapha to convey The Seer's words and visions.;)

Blessings!

Clifton
Jun 3rd 2008, 02:08 AM
I do not see a difference between the New Jerusalem and the Heavenly Jerusalem; they are one and the same. As for an earthly temple during the millennium standing in Jerusalem, see 2 Sam. 7:12-16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%207:12-16;&version=50;); Ps. 51:18-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps.%2051:18-19;&version=50;); 69:35 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps.%2069:35;&version=50;); 102:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps.%20102:16;&version=50;); 132:13-14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps.%20132:13-14;&version=50;); 147:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps.%20147:2;&version=50;); Isa. 56:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa.%2056:7;&version=50;); Jer. 30:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jer.%2030:18;&version=50;); 31:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jer.%2031:4;&version=50;); Eze. 40-48 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2040;&version=50;); Amos 9:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Amos%209:11;&version=50;); Zech. 6:11-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%206:11-15;&version=50;) (for starters, anyway).

I wouldn't say that it will be displaced, but instead "married" (see Eph. 1:9-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%201:9-10;&version=50;); John 3:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:13;&version=50;); 1:51 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:51;&version=50;)).


Thanks for this. I have saved it and will study the core of those verses. But I know right away it will not change what Revelation states. Getting that right, might avoid adjusting other verses in Scriptures.;)

Blessings.

wombat
Jun 3rd 2008, 02:22 AM
If you agree that the daily sacrifices don't take away sins, why do you think they'll be performed for eternity?

Hi, Markedward! I do believe that the Bible speaks of Israel performing the priestly service for the world during the Millennium, but that is not meaning that it will be for eternity. There will still be sinful men and women during the Millennium, those who survived Armageddon (witnessed by the fact that after the 1000 years are up, Satan is allowed to go out one last time to turn the world against Christ and come against Jerusalem). The resurrected believers would not be ones to turn against Christ--only those who never before had His Spirit within them. Once Satan is finally defeated, the Great White Throne Judgment occurs, after which come the new heaven and new earth for eternity. During eternity in this new heaven and new earth, only the righteous will live there, and the sacrifices would not be necessary. But during the Millennium, those people who had not accepted Christ during the time of Grace but survived Armageddon, will live to populate the world. The age of Grace is over at this point. Christ's death on the cross did indeed pay for all of man's sin, but in order to receive the gift of salvation and pardon, we must accept it with repentance and belief.

Merton
Jun 3rd 2008, 02:48 AM
Fascinating - I heard the same last week. However, in the text and the related texts, they are definitely not the same. How does the "one and the same" thing descend to Earth TWICE out of Heaven??? Makes no sense, even looking at it in English. I'm eager to hear this. Of course, the NEW Jerusalem is mentioned first as descending in the traditional order of the text of Revelation, and the Heavenly Jerusalem (the beloved city, and as I recall, the Holy City on the Holy Mountain, or something like that, in ancient Hebrew Literature), is mentioned later as descending upon the Earth, though it is mentioned second as descending, and that is the one for the Millennium;

So, the first mentioned is the last and final one, and the second one mention is for the Millennium. Kind of reminds ya of the saying, the first is last and the last is first.:)
***
Revelation 21:9-22:2, 14-15, 17. Vision of the Heavenly Jerusalem, which descends from Heaven and settles on the ruined site of the earthly Jerusalem. This Heavenly City is at once the seat of the Messianic Kingdom, the abode of the glorified martyrs, and the center of the evangelizing agencies of the surviving nations on the earth, during the millennial period. Though it is not stated, we must conclude that alike the glorified martyrs and the Heavenly Jerusalem are withdrawn from the earth before the final judgment.

And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the set-apart Yerushalayim, descending out of the heaven from Elohim,
Revelation 21:10 The Scriptures 1998+
***
That's the Millennium one.

AFTER THE MILLENNIUM:

Revelation 21:5a, 4d, 5b; 21:1-4abc.; and 22:3-5. Declaration by God that the former things have passed away and that He creates all things new. Forthwith The Seer sees the new heaven and the new earth and the New[2] Jerusalem coming down, adorned as a bride for her husband. God tabernacles with men. No more grief or pain or tears or death. All the faithful are to reign with Christ for ever and ever (22:5), whereas in the Millennial Kingdom only the risen martyrs were to reign for a thousand years.

Footnote:
[2] “New” = Even the Heavenly City of 21:10, which had been withdrawn from the earth before the Judgment with Christ and the saints, is renewed or displaced by one of a higher nature.

And I, Yoḥanan, saw the set-apart city, renewed Yerushalayim, coming down out of the heaven from Elohim, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Revelation 21:2 The Scriptures 1998+

That's the Eternal One.

Actually, the same primary Greek word, "καταβαίνω", (Strong's # G2597) underlies the English "descending" and "coming down" here. BTW, "Set-apart" = "Holy".

***

So, I await your logic of how you have one Jerusalem, for the Millennium, fused with another, the New one, which BTW, is an idiom of the Seer for the Eternal Abode (in doing this, you also have the millennium and eternal abode fused), and how "this one and the same" of yours descends twice. Where is the ascension of this "this one and the same", and "why" was it ascended? What textual support have ya for this?:hmm:

Realize that without a knowledge of The Pseudepigrapha it would be impossible to understand The Seer, John The Presbyter. In those days such literature was common place for the people. Revelation is modeled on a lot of the Pseudepigrapha to convey The Seer's words and visions.;)

Blessings!

Clifton,

There is only one Heavenly City.

It is made up of Christ in the presence of His Father and the Holy angels with the saints.

It is impossible to have two cities when the city is that of God with His people.

If we see another city then it is one of earth/bricks.

It is into the Heavenly City which all believers of all ages are gathered, not two Heavenly cities.

How does that effect what you are stating? Do you want a new thread on it?

Merton.

The Village Idiot
Jun 3rd 2008, 03:00 AM
Pre-mill and reformed is a no-fly, but some need time to put it together.

The Village Idiot
Jun 3rd 2008, 03:22 AM
[quote] Jesus' perfect sacrifice did not annul all other sacrifices... /QUOTE]

One such "knife-and-blood" rites was circumcision. I think that we are moving inexorably toward complaints of heresy.

jewel4Christ
Jun 3rd 2008, 03:26 AM
Yes it is shocking...when a person actually thinks about it...:(

Here are several:
Pre-Trib Research Center (http://www.pre-trib.org/article-view.php?id=244)

Is It Time for The Temple?
In spite of contemporary turmoil, Israel'��s Third Temple will one day be rebuild as Dr. Price and I demonstrated in Ready To Rebuild from Daniel 9:24-27; Matthew 24:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; Revelation 11:1-2; 13:14-��15. Few observers of world events ever thought Israel would become a nation again, but it did occur in 1948. Yet, there will be a rebuilt temple by the middle of the seven-year tribulation in order to facilitate the fulfillment of Bible prophecy.

I have often taught that the long-awaited permission for the Jews to rebuild their Temple will likely be part of the covenant between Antichrist and Israel that starts the seven-year tribulation after the rapture. It appears to me that the Temple will be rebuilt and supervised supernaturally by the two witnesses during the first half of the tribulation. Since one of the two witnesses will most likely be Elijah, this would mean that the ministry of Elijah should tell us more about the ministry of the two witnesses. Malachi 4:4-5 says, "Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. An he will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse." Perhaps the ministry of Elijah, where he will help the Jewish people "get right with God," before the return of the Lord will involve their Third Temple, until commandeered by Antichrist.

Regardless of how the Lord works out the details, His plan will be brought to pass. In the meantime, many of the current events now taking place in and around Jerusalem and the Temple Mount are setting the stage for what will be a string of events that will usher in the second coming of Christ. Meanwhile, the church is looking for the rapture, where Christ will take us in an instance to be with Himself for all eternity. Maranatha!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Temple#Protestant_view
Third Temple
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Protestant view

The dominant view within Protestant Christianity is that animal sacrifices within the Temple were a foreshadowing of the sacrifice Jesus made for the sins of the world, through his death. As such they believe there is no longer a need for the physical temple and its rituals.

Those Protestants who do believe in the importance of a future rebuilt temple (viz.,some dispensationalists) hold that the importance of the sacrificial system shifts to a Memorial of the Cross, given the text of Ezekiel Chapters 39 and following (in addition to Millennial references to the Temple in other Old Testament passages); since Ezekiel explains at length the construction and nature of the Millennial temple, in which Jews will once again hold the priesthood; some others hold that perhaps it was not completely eliminated with Jesus' sacrifice for sin, but is a ceremonial object lesson for confession and forgiveness (somewhat like water baptism and Communion are today); and that such animal sacrifices would still be appropriate for ritual cleansing and for acts of celebration and thanksgiving toward God.

Some dispensationalists believe this will be the case with the Second Coming of Christ when Jesus reigns over earth from the city of Jerusalem.[specify] interprets a passage in the Book of Daniel, Daniel 12:11, as a prophecy that the end of this age will occur shortly after sacrifices are ended in the newly rebuilt temple.[citation needed]

Third Temple World (http://www.thirdtempleworld.com/home.htm)


The Temple Institute (http://www.templeinstitute.org/main.htm)
All who pray for the fulfillment of the Biblical prophecies that promise the reestablishment of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem are invited and welcome to become part of the Temple Institute's vision, and share in these efforts. Please visit our membership page (secure server) for more information about supporting the Temple Institute and member's benefits

Millennial madness (http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9911/millennium.html)

Now I certainly haven't read through all of these...just scanned them a bit...as you can see their views on what will happen if a third temple is built doesn't even agree. One thinks Jesus will sit in the temple itself...another thinks the antichrist...the view vary as much as people do it seems.

God bless


Thanks for the links, moonglow.

I agree, it all boils down to confusion.


peaceandlove,


janet

Nihil Obstat
Jun 3rd 2008, 04:08 AM
One such "knife-and-blood" rites was circumcision. I think that we are moving inexorably toward complaints of heresy.

Circumcision was similar to the rainbow - a sign of covenant (Gen. 9:9-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209:9-17;&version=50;); 17:10-11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2017:10-11;&version=50;)). What I'm suggesting here is far from heresy.

wpm
Jun 3rd 2008, 04:15 AM
Jesus' perfect sacrifice did not annul all other sacrifices, but only the Day of Atonement's sacrifices. God did not forget the sins atoned for by daily sacrifices, nor even by the scapegoat did He forget, but the scapegoat was a shadow and was fulfilled by Christ and by His blood the heavenly temple cleansed. Only those sins brought before Him to be cleansed are forgotten. To be forgotten, sins must be brought into the temple. This isn't saying that the cross was insufficient! Hardly! To say that sins could be atoned for without being in the temple would lead to Universal Reconciliation, which compromises God's justice and gravely misunderstands His mercy (as you undoubtedly agree). Christ did His part at the cross; we must do our part to be cleansed as well, or there is a disconnect.

Yes, in the New Covenant sins are no longer remembered. What sins? Sins that are brought before Him to be cleansed.

If you are a believer, sin (intentionally or unintentionally), and do not seek God's forgiveness and a right standing before Him when you are made aware of your sin, then are you covered by His blood? How can you be? Your covenantal relationship with Him has suffered a separation by your own denial to seek the remission of your sin (cp. Heb. 10:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:26;&version=50;)). It is the sins of a believer which are vainly kept "hidden" from God which are not covered by His blood - even those unknown sins once they are made known to us, if not atoned for, keep us from His righteousness.

Lk.11

You are saying all this and missing the application of my post, it was directed to show you the biblical teaching on the removal of the Judaic sacrificial system in Christ. No one is denying the requirement of a life of faith and repentance, what I am saying is that God abolished the old unpleasing imperefect covenant and replaced it with the new perfect and eternal covenant in Christ.

The OT sacrifices were replaced for the very reason you are proposing to resurrect them.

Firstly, Heb 10:4 explains, "it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins."Here we see the inferiority of the old covenant described. It couldn’t remove sin. It couldn’t remove guilt. It was deficient.

But Hebrews 9:26 tells us, “now once in the end of the world hath he (Jesus) appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”

The OT animal sacrifices could only cover sin, they couldn’t remove it. At the cross Jesus took our sins in full and nailed them to the tree.

Secondly, Heb 10:3 of our reading tells us that in the old covenant “sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.”

Heb 10:17 confirms, what we learnt a few weeks ago, under the new covenant God promises, “their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.”

Every yr the people of God in the OT were reminded of their sins on the day of atonement. However, this all-knowing God today forgets the repented sins of His people.

Thirdly, Heb 10:1 of our chapter confirms: the old covenant “can never with those sacrifices … make the comers thereunto perfect.”The fact is,“the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did” (Hebrews 7:19).

That “better hope” was Christ and the transaction He paid for sin at the cross. It was that final sacrifice for sin that perfects the redeemed. Why? Christ has satisfied every righteous demand of a holy God. He took upon Himself our sin and in turn took the penalty that was due to us. There is therefore no condemnation for them that are in Christ. Heb 10:14 of this narrative confirms: “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”

Paul

wpm
Jun 3rd 2008, 04:24 AM
Let me first state that I'm pre-mill, and reformed.

Among Premillennial theologians, it is assumed that this temple will
be built during the 1000 year reign of Christ on Earth. There is
nothing like it in history, so it's either a future structure, or a
complete anomaly.

The animal sacrifices mentioned in these passages have caused critics
of the Premil view to argue that such sacrifices are done away with in
Christ and therefore, if Israel were indeed to build such a future
temple and begin such sacrifices, it would be a blasphemous thing to
do. However, the Premil advocate would argue that if animal
sacrifices in the OT were "types and shadows" pointing forward to the
sacrifice of Christ, they could equally point backward. Remember that
in the book of Acts Paul went to Jerusalem, took a vow, shaved his
head, and killed an animal as a sacrifice, after Jesus was resurrected
and Paul himself was converted. So, the idea is not completely
without Biblical precedent.

What we must keep in mind when we view such passages is that God's
dealings with Israel must come to a full and satisfactory completion.
And if God chooses to redeem those elements of worship that never
produced righteousness (such as the temple system, priests, the law,
etc.) in such a way that they all redound to His glory, that's fine
with me.

What's certain is that the passages you mentioned at the end of
Ezekiel create a great deal of difficulty for the Amil interpreter.
There is simply no way to adequately spiritualize those chapters in
any sensible fashion. So, I prefer to leave them be, let them say
what they say, and expect God to do everything He has said He is going
to do --- which seems like a much safer approach to me. :-)

This is one of the most concerning aspects of Premillennialism. In your scheme, the Judaic priesthood will be fully restored in the form of the Levitical sons of Zadok (Ezekiel 40:46, 43:19, 44:15 and 48:11). They will function in the temple re-igniting the old covenant sacrifices and ordinances. What you forget, Zadok (who was a priest in Solomon's temple in 2 Samuel) and his sons are long dead. This priesthood no longer exists. Moreover, there is no need for the old covenant earthly priest; his office was rendered eternally redundant at Calvary. Hebrews 7:11-12 tells us, "If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

The book of Hebrews destroys any notion of the restoration of the old covenant priests. I find it inconceivable that this defunct priesthood will be restored to compete with Christ in a future temple. Hebrews 7:19 tells us,“the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.” Christ owns the only priestly office that God recognises for all eternity. Hebrews 7:22 confirms, “By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.” For “he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises”(Hebrews 8:6).

We have entered into a new divine arrangement that supersedes the shadow, type and figure. Man has one true heavenly High Priest and requires none other. For you to desire for others is a grave error and underlines the dangers of the Premillennial teaching. The one true eternal high priest has perfected the last sacrifice for sin, and now sits in heaven interceding for His elect. Thus He fulfils the two-fold duty of the priest (making atonement for sin, and interceding on the people’s behalf). Hebrews 10:19-21 says, "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God."

The book of Hebrews effectively deals with, and unambiguously rebuts, many of the proposals Premil present re their supposed future millennium. The writer of the Hebrews compares subjects like the Promised Land, the kingdom, Jerusalem, the temple, priesthood, and animal sacrifices in their typical Old Testament setting and shows their fulfilment at and since Messiah's earthly ministry. We see how the imperfect Old Testament shadows and types were all realised "in Christ" in the New. We see time after time how the Old Testament arrangement with its focus upon the physical temporal earthly is replaced in all these matters by the spiritual, eternal and the heavenly. The Old therefore has been superseded by the New.
Hebrews 8:6-7 explains, “now hath He[Christ]obtained a more excellent ministry(than the priests that made imperfect sacrifices), by how much alsoHe is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second."

For you to advocate the return of the old removed imperfect, shadow and type (which has been eternally removed "in Christ") does great injury to the cross-work. I must remind you, the old covenant with its unsatisfactory imperfect animal sacrifices have now been replaced by the new covenant with its one individual all-sufficient perfect eternal sacrifice. Hebrews 8:8 confirms, "For finding fault(or imperfection) with them"or finding that they were not satisfactory, He made “a new covenant.”Christ has met / satisfied all God's demands. By His self sacrifice he became the perfect eternal sacrifice. Hebrews 7:19 declares,“For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did."

These Scriptures expose the Premillennial desire for the restoration of the old covenant system to be ill-founded.

Israel has only ever had one high priest at a time. How then can you propose the reintroduction the old covenant arrangement with other competing priests while Christ will be there in His eternal office of high priest of the elect?

To suggest that the temple sacrifices will be resurrected must undermine the finished work of the cross. Remember, we now have an everlasting high priest who doesn't need replaced. He has superseded the imperfect abolished old covenant priesthood with its typical sacrifices. The thought of another one (or other ones) operating in a future millennium is totally unacceptable. They would obviously rival Christ's eternal priesthood. You are suggesting we go back to the shadow, type and figure, however, you are yet to address any of the New Testament passages I have presented that forbid your viewpoint.

Hebrews 7:21-24 says, speaking of Christ, “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.”

The word interpreted “unchangeable” here is very significant. It comes from the Greek word aparabatos, which simply means non-transferable. It is a legal word. For example, it relates to a judge laying down a decision that is unalterable and non-transferable. It also describes something which belongs to one person and cannot be transferred to anyone else. This tells us, no one else can hold the Melchizedek priesthood. Christ continues alone in this role, having an unchangeable non-transferable priestly office. Unlike the old covenant priesthood, Christ has no successors in this office. This priesthood cannot pass from one to another, it is not transmissible. No other can appropriate this title or share in the function of the position, Christ alone holds that sacred high priestly office. Christ is the only real and perfect High Priest. He is the ultimate and final high priest of the redeemed of God.

All the main commentators agree with this understanding. Matthew Henry says of this passage, “this our high priest continues for ever, and his priesthood is aparabaton – an unchangeable one, that does not pass from one to another, as the former did; it is always in the same hand.” Adam Clarke says of this order, “a priesthood that passeth not away from him; he lives forever, and he lives a priest forever.” Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown agree, stating, Christ “hath His priesthood intransmissible: not passing from one to another.” Barnes says, “The idea is not strictly that it was ‘unchangeable’, but that ‘it did not pass over into other hands’. The Levitical priesthood passed from one to another as successive generations came on the stage of action … but … it [the order of Melchisedec] is permanent, and does not pass from hand to hand.”

Through His sinless life, His atoning sacrifice and glorious resurrection, Jesus replaced the imperfect temporal Levitical priesthood and established Himself a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. There is no other human that could have taken this illustrious position (with everything it entailed). The writer to the Hebrews demonstrates how there was no permanency to the old priesthood. The Levitical priests died and had to be replaced; but the priesthood of Jesus is for ever. His priesthood is one that will never pass away. Hebrews explains that the priesthood of Christ is something which can never be taken from Christ; it is something that no one else can ever possess, and it is eternal. In short, it is perpetually untransferable. Hebrews 5:6 says, “As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.”This reading clearly shows Christ holds this holy office “for ever.” In fact Hebrews 6:20, 7:3, 17 and 21 all say that Christ is “a priest for ever.”

Christ is consecrated a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec, by an oath which stands fast for evermore. Hebrews 7:27-28 confirms this, telling us that Christ “needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.”

This priesthood that belongs to Christ is far superior to the old one because it is established with an oath of God which indicates something sure, final, eternal and unchanging. We therefore need no other high priest — no other mediator (1 Timothy 2:5). Christ will not (or cannot) share this office with another, neither can He hand the baton over to others. He holds it firm and alone as of right and by way of an everlasting oath.

The renting of the veil was a clear demonstration that the Levitical rites and ordinances were eternally abolished. The old covenant had been abrogated and the new covenant (with its new mediator) was brought into view. The veil splitting down the middle marked the final departure of the presence of God from the holy place. When Jesus died, the whole typical purpose of the Jewish sanctuary was rendered obsolete. It ceased to have any divine purpose. The type had met and was replaced by the anti-type, the shadow by the real and the temporal by the eternal. The unsatisfactory was eternally changed to the satisfactory, the imperfect to the perfect.

Paul

wpm
Jun 3rd 2008, 04:47 AM
Hi, Markedward! I do believe that the Bible speaks of Israel performing the priestly service for the world during the Millennium, but that is not meaning that it will be for eternity. There will still be sinful men and women during the Millennium, those who survived Armageddon (witnessed by the fact that after the 1000 years are up, Satan is allowed to go out one last time to turn the world against Christ and come against Jerusalem). The resurrected believers would not be ones to turn against Christ--only those who never before had His Spirit within them. Once Satan is finally defeated, the Great White Throne Judgment occurs, after which come the new heaven and new earth for eternity. During eternity in this new heaven and new earth, only the righteous will live there, and the sacrifices would not be necessary. But during the Millennium, those people who had not accepted Christ during the time of Grace but survived Armageddon, will live to populate the world. The age of Grace is over at this point. Christ's death on the cross did indeed pay for all of man's sin, but in order to receive the gift of salvation and pardon, we must accept it with repentance and belief.


Whose sins are these sacrifices for and who makes them?

Paul

Cyberseeker
Jun 3rd 2008, 05:08 AM
Remember that
in the book of Acts Paul went to Jerusalem, took a vow, shaved his
head, and killed an animal as a sacrifice, after Jesus was resurrected
and Paul himself was converted. So, the idea is not completely
without Biblical precedent.

No, he didnt actually. Look at this scripture again. God intercepted his (mistaken) intention and dragged him out before he could do such a thing. (Acts 21:30)

wombat
Jun 3rd 2008, 05:11 AM
Whose sins are these sacrifices for and who makes them?
Hi, WPM! The sacrifices are performed by the Levitical priests in the Jerusalem that will be re-established on earth after Armageddon, and they are for the spiritually unsaved survivors of Armageddon who live in the Millennial period. I do not believe that Christians need this form of sacrifice--Jesus is our one atonement for sin for those who believe in Him.

matthew94
Jun 3rd 2008, 05:15 AM
I think the opening post is a great example of the danger of interpreting the New Testament BY the Old Testament instead of the reverse. I don't mean this as a slam against the opening poster, I applaud him for being consistent in their methodology despite the results. I also applaud him b/c when people take their beliefs to their logical conclusion, it might scare like-minded people straight!

wpm
Jun 3rd 2008, 05:25 AM
Hi, WPM! The sacrifices are performed by the Levitical priests in the Jerusalem that will be re-established on earth after Armageddon, and they are for the spiritually unsaved survivors of Armageddon who live in the Millennial period. I do not believe that Christians need this form of sacrifice--Jesus is our one atonement for sin for those who believe in Him.

What actually do these sacrifices secure for these "spiritually unsaved survivors of Armageddon who live in the Millennial period"?

Paul

wombat
Jun 3rd 2008, 05:26 AM
I posted this comment in a different thread with Scriptures to go along with it, but I can't locate that post at the moment. I'll do a better search for it later today
Hi,everyone! Here is a copied section from the post I had made in another thread that addresses my thoughts on the possibility of animal sacrifice during the Millennium. I hope this helps a little to clarify.

Ezekiel 37 says that God will place His Temple in Israel forever. Jeremiah 33:18 says that there will always be Levitical priests to offer sacrifices. I believe that there will indeed be a Temple during the Millennial era, and that the people of Israel will be ministers of God and priests in the Temple (Isaiah 61:6), offering sacrifices for the remnants of the nations who managed to survive Armageddon. These people who survived are not the saints (who are reigning with Christ), they had not been saved by believing in Christ, so they have no covering for sin. Perhaps this is why God will allow animal sacrifice during the Millennial reign. Ezekiel 44 speaks of Levites from Zadok's family becoming the ranking priests (above the other Levites). Interesting that Zadok was a descendant of Phinehas, to whom God made a covenant. Jeremiah 33:19-22 says if God's covenant with the day and night can be broken so they don't arrive on schedule, only then will He ever break His covenant with David to forever have a descendant on Israel's throne and His covenant with the Levitical priests to always offer sacrifices to Him.

wombat
Jun 3rd 2008, 05:34 AM
What actually do these sacrifices secure for these "spiritually unsaved survivors of Armageddon who live in the Millennial period"?
Hi again! It is temporary covering of sins, which just as in Old Testament days needed to be performed from time to time. I don't see that this actually secures them anything in the way of eternal life, if that may be what you mean to ask, but they will have need of being made clean so that they may come to take part in worship during this time.

wpm
Jun 3rd 2008, 05:38 AM
the people of Israel will be ministers of God and priests in the Temple (Isaiah 61:6), offering sacrifices for the remnants of the nations who managed to survive Armageddon. These people who survived are not the saints (who are reigning with Christ), they had not been saved by believing in Christ, so they have no covering for sin.

(1) So are you saying that God approves of these sacrifices?

(2) What affect do they have on Israel, surely this is a Jewish system?

(3) In what way do the Gentile nations participate?

(4) Do they access this temple and receive forgiveness? Do thgey bring a sacrifice themselves?

(5) Does it have any propitiatiatory or substitutionary qualities?

Paul

wpm
Jun 3rd 2008, 05:55 AM
Hi again! It is temporary covering of sins, which just as in Old Testament days needed to be performed from time to time. I don't see that this actually secures them anything in the way of eternal life, if that may be what you mean to ask, but they will have need of being made clean so that they may come to take part in worship during this time.

What do you mean clean? I assume you are talking about spiritually clean not physically clean before God?

Surely the only ones that have ever been truly clean since the beginning are those who have entered into eternal life by simple faith in Christ (Messiah) and the merits of the blood?

In what way do they (I assume that you are talking about Christ-rejecting Gentiles) "take part in worship during this time"?

Where does it actually state that it will be a "temporary covering of sins"?

Paul

jeffweeder
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:13 AM
How can there be a temporary covering , when Jesus sacrifice was absolute--it is finished.
In Ezek temple, God said that this is where he would dwell 4ever-43:7.
Rev 21 says that there is no temple in heaven.

So we must take ezekiels temple to be figurative, as God does not dwell in a literal temple, but in us.

Hawkins
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:21 AM
I haven't read through the whole thread yet. I think that if the earthly temple was not set up, how will humans be able to understand that Jesus came with a new convenant? How will humans be able to understand that He came to sacrifice Himself for us?

From another perspective, all were set up for His first (and perhaps second) coming.

wpm
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:24 AM
I haven't read through the whole thread yet. I think that if the earthly temple was not set up, how will humans be able to understand that Jesus came with a new convenant? How will humans be able you understand that He came to sacrifice Himself for us?

From another perspective, all were set up for He's first (and perhaps second) coming.

Are you talking about the old demolished temple that served as a shadow and type or are you talking about a supposed future temple in a Post-Second Coming millennium?

Paul

Hawkins
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:26 AM
Are you talking about the old demolished temple that served as a shadow and type or are you talking about a supposed future temple in a Post-Second Coming millennium?

Paul

I mean that it's through the earthly temple and the Jew's religious culture that we understand practically what a covenant is. If it's not because what's done and recorded about the covenants before Jesus, it will be hard for us to know what a covenant is, what a sacrifice is, what lamb is...and etc.

Raybob
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:56 AM
Hi, WPM! The sacrifices are performed by the Levitical priests in the Jerusalem that will be re-established on earth after Armageddon, and they are for the spiritually unsaved survivors of Armageddon who live in the Millennial period. I do not believe that Christians need this form of sacrifice--Jesus is our one atonement for sin for those who believe in Him.

Do you honestly believe there will be billions of people on earth after Jesus returns that will go on with life as usual?

Raybob

wombat
Jun 3rd 2008, 02:01 PM
Do you honestly believe there will be billions of people on earth after Jesus returns that will go on with life as usual?
Hello, Raybob! I don't know if it will be billions. There will be a remnant of people who survive and begin to repopulate the earth.

Perhaps this quote will help to clarify some issues, as well, regarding WPM's questions for me too. Just so this doesn't get too long a post, I may break it up into separate messages here.

Isaiah 66:15-16 speaks of the judgments of the Tribulation period. "See the Lord is coming with fire, and His swift chariots of destruction roar like a whirlwind. He will bring punishment with the fury of His anger and the flaming fire of His hot rebuke. The Lord will punish the world by fire and by His sword, and many will be killed by the Lord."

Then in verses 18-24 speaks of the survivors who will become the people of the Millennium under the rule of Christ and His Saints. "So I will gather al nations and peoples together, and they will see My glory. I will perform a sign for them. And I will send those who survive to be messengers to the nations--to Tarshish, to the Libyans and Lydians (who are famous as archers), to Tubal and Greece, and to all the lands beyond the sea that have not heard of My fame or seen My glory. There they will declare My glory to the nations. They will bring the remnant of your people [Israel] back from every nation. They will bring them to My holy mountain in Jerusalem as an offering to the Lord. They will ride on horses, in chariots and wagons, and on mules and camels, says the Lord. And I will appoint ome of those who return to be My priests and Levites. I, the Lord, have spoken! As surely as My new heavens and earth will remain, so will you [Israel] always be My people, with a name that will never disappear, says the Lord. All humanity will come to worship Me from week to week and from month to month. And as the go out, they will see the dead bodies of those who have rebelled against Me. For the worms that devour them will never die, and he fire that burns them will never go out. All who pass by will view them with utter horror."

More to follow soon...

wombat
Jun 3rd 2008, 02:11 PM
Hello again! Here's another Scripture reference to a remnant surviving Armageddon. Isaiah 24:1-13 speaks of the terrors of the Tribulation period, and then about the remnant. "Look! The Lord is about to destroy the earth and make it a vast wasteland. See how He is scattering the people over the face of the earth. Priests and laypeople, servants and masters, maids and mistresses, buyers and sellers, lenders and borrowers, bankers and debtors--none will be spared. The earth will be completely emptied and looted. The Lord has spoken!

"The earth dries up, the crops wither, the skies refuse to ran. The earth suffers for the sins of its people, for they have twisted the instructions of God, violated His laws, and broken His everlasting covenant. Therefore, a curse consumes the earth and its people. They are left desolate, destroyed by fire. Few will be left alive. All the joys of life will be gone. The grape harvest will fail, and there will be no wine. The merrymakers will sigh and mourn. The clash of tambourines will be stilled, the happy cries of celbration will be heard no more. The melodious chords of the harp will be silent. Gone are the joys of wine and song, strong drink now turns bitter in the mouth. The city writhes in chaos; every home is locked to keep out looters. Mobs gather in the streets, crying out for wine. Joy has reached its lowest ebb. Gladness has been banished from the land. The city is left in ruins, with its gates battered down.

"Throughout the earth the story is the same--like the stray olives left on the tree or the few grapes left on the vine after harvest, only a remnant is left. But all wh are left will shout and sing for joy. Those in the west will praise the Lord's majesty. In eastern lands, give glory to the Lord. In he coastlands of the sea, praise the name of the Lord, the God of Israel. Listen to them as they sing to the Lord from the ends of the earth. Hear them singing prises to the Righteous One!"

More again to follow...

wombat
Jun 3rd 2008, 02:30 PM
(1) So are you saying that God approves of these sacrifices? (2) What affect do they have on Israel, surely this is a Jewish system? (3) In what way do the Gentile nations participate? (4) Do they access this temple and receive forgiveness? Do thgey bring a sacrifice themselves? (5) Does it have any propitiatiatory or substitutionary qualities?
Hello again, WPM! Here are some thoughts regarding your questions that I'd like to share. Not sure I'm answering these in order, so please pardon my meanderings.

Ezekiel 20:40-44 speaks of a time in the future when Israel will again worship God in truth. "For on My holy mountain, says the Sovereign Lord, the people of Israel will someday worship Me, and I will accept them. There I will require that you bring Me all your offerings and choice gifts and sacrifices. When I bring you home from exile, you will be as pleasing to me as an offering of perfumed incense. And I will display My holiness in you as all the nations watch. Then when I have brought you home to the land I promised your ancestors, you will know that I am the Lord. You will look back at all your sins and hate yourselves because of the evil you have done. You will know that I am the Lord, O people of Israel, when I have honored My name to treating you mercifully in spite of your wickedness, says the Sovereign Lord."

I think that one thing we must bear in mind is that the sacrifices and offerings and feast days, etc., were not instigated by Israel (therefore a Jewish system), but by God. He required them for a variety of reasons. One, they were a foreshadow of Christ's future sacrifice. Two, they were a covering over the sacrificers so that they might be allowed to enter into worship of the Lord at the Temple. I'm sure there are many more reasons too.

Oops--got to make a phone call. I'll be back in just a minute or two to continue this line of thought. See you in a minute!

Clifton
Jun 3rd 2008, 02:44 PM
Clifton,

There is only one Heavenly City.

There will be only one “Heavenly Jerusalem” upon this current Earth, which will be in The Millennium age. It is also referred to as the “beloved city” in this context. This one has no “man constructed” Temple, not like those of the past, or any that will built by man in this time before the Millennium, which will just be part of a desolation by that time anyway;
But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty is its temple, also the Lamb.
Revelation 21:22 Complete Apostles' BibleOnly the righteous will be able to get inside of it – the others have to stay outside unless they are converted:
Blessed are those who do His commandments, so that their right shall be to the tree of life, and they may enter by the gates into the city. But outside are dogs and drug users and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices a lie. See 21:27.
Revelation 22:14-15 Complete Apostles' Bible
It is made up of Christ in the presence of His Father and the Holy angels with the saints.

It is impossible to have two cities when the city is that of God with His people. So you deny these particular “readings” in the Book of Revelation? Granted that the Book has interpolations and marginal glosses and is a bit disordered (and more drastically the last 3 chapters) and there is lost text that we do not have, but none of that effects what is addressed here. Those entries were penned by The Seer – the linguistic and stylistic studies were thoroughly studied, and what is referred to here, WAS penned by The Seer. Thus, it is impossible, by the Greek, the Hebrew Idioms used, and the Seer’s unique style, to fuse a different era for this current physical Earth into the Eternal Abode and cities as the same exact one and stature.


If we see another city then it is one of earth/bricks. “We”? Who are “we”? And what textual support do you have “what” the “Heavenly Jerusalem” is “made of” that will be in the so-called Millennium age? What difference does it make “what” the “Heavenly Jerusalem” is made of for the Millennium that descends upon the Earth since it comes down out of heaven from God (Revelation 21:10)? I look for the new, in and of the Eternal Abode.


It is into the Heavenly City which all believers of all ages are gathered, not two Heavenly cities. You have either altered my post or misread. :( - First of all, I made the distinctions:
1) Heavenly Jerusalem: Millennium (which is shown as descending in 21:10);
2) New Jerusalem: Eternal Abode for the afterlife (which is shown as descending in 21:2).

All saints of all ages are gathered into the New Jerusalem, of the Eternal Abode. While I went to Church and read a little Bible early in my age, I did not become a “Christian” until 1972. The standard teaching for serious exegetical Revelation teachers and students is that only a select group enters into the Millennium, and sees its “beloved city” (“Heavenly Jerusalem”). At the time I became a Christian, it appears that those outside of the exegetical Revelation Teachers and Students, “new” ideas and things started to spread (due to media, books, etc.) that came about then or earlier (as if new inventions in the 1st Millennum A.D. were not enough). I was not even aware of them until much later on. You are not dealing with a "newborn" here. ;)


How does that effect what you are stating? Do you want a new thread on it? Again, your reply does not comply with the content of my post in places. So it does not matter how that effects what I am stating – it is the Bible that matters. And despite the disorder of the last 3 Chapters of Revelation, I do not see how anyone misses the fact that even in English, there are TWO DESCENSIONS, which BTW, you did not address;
And he carried me away in spirit onto a great and high mountain, and he showed to me the holy city Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God,
Revelation 21:10 Complete Apostles' Bible

Then I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, having been prepared like a bride having been adorned for her husband.
Revelation 21:2 Complete Apostles' BibleStart a new thread if you wish, and if things allow me, and God permits, I feel I will be able to participate and will be more than happy to participate. But on that note, let’s remember that I did start a thread in providing the standard exegetical teaching from teachers and learning students prior to 1970’s, and you stated that you would participate, and that thread (puzzlingly) got moved to Contro, which I thought all “well enough” since the Seer modeled some of his writings on the Pseudepigrapha, of which can be quoted over there in that forum. Of course, I wound up importing some text from there to here anyway, but quotations of the Pseudepigrapha will have to be saved for the Contro Forum and that thread. However, I believe “references”
(e.g., 1 Enoch 51:1 <-> Revelation 20:13)
can still be made here though – I think.

While the so-called Millennium is to be a restoration of what was intended in the beginning, and things will be staggeringly far better than what is now and has been, I look for the New Jerusalem, Earth, and Heavens. :pp

Blessings!:)

wombat
Jun 3rd 2008, 03:09 PM
Oops--got to make a phone call. I'll be back in just a minute or two to continue this line of thought. See you in a minute!
Sorry about that interruption. I'm back now with a Scripture from Isaiah 61. Verse 6-7 says "You will be called priests of the Lord, ministers of our God. You will be fed with the treasures of the nations and will boast in their riches. Instead of shame and dishonor, you will inherit a double portion of prosperity and everlasting joy." There are other verses that indicate the remnant peoples of the nations will bring their treasures to give to Israel, and Israel will in turn give them to the Lord as an offering. This speaks of the period after Armageddon, as the Millennial Kingdom is beginning. Isaiah 60:8-19 is a great example that speaks about this period.

On the subject of the remnant needing to be clean before God so that they may take part in worship, here are a few verses to consider.

Ezekiel 43:1-12 speaks of the Lord appearing from the east as the whole landscape shines with His glory. His glory enters the temple through the east gateway, and He says "This is the place of My throne and the place where I will rest My feet. I will remain here forever, living among the people of Israel." Later in this reference He says "This is the basic law of the Temple: absolute holiness! The entire top of the hill where the Temple is built is holy." For the people of the world who are the remnant to come to God's holy place to worship, they would need some form of covering for their sin, as they would not be considered clean to come into God's holy presence.

Zechariah 14 speaks of the Tribulation period and its aftermath and the beginning of the Millennial Kingdom. From verses 12-15 it speaks of a terrible plague that falls on all the nations who battled against Jerusalem, including their animals. Then it says "In the end, the enemies of Jerusalem who survive the plague will go up to Jerusalem each year to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, and to celebrate the Festival of Shelters. And any nation anywhere in the world that refuses to come to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, will have no rain. Verses 20-21 speaks of the sacrifices to take place at that time. "On that day even the harness bells o the horses will be inscribed with these words: Set Apart as Holy to the Lord. And the cooking pots in the Temple of the Lord will be as sacred as the basins used beside the altar. In fact, every cooking pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be set apart as holy to the Lord Almighty. All who come to worship will be free to use any of these pots to boil their sacrifices. And on that day there will no longer be traders in the Temple of the Lord Almighty."

wpm
Jun 3rd 2008, 04:40 PM
Wombat

I am not sure of what you are saying. Could you answer these as clear as possible? I am genuinely trying to understand where you are coming from. They are simply to clarify your previous comments.

(1) What do you mean clean? I assume you are talking about spiritually clean not physically clean before God?

(2) Surely the only ones that have ever been truly clean since the beginning are those who have entered into eternal life by simple faith in Christ (Messiah) and the merits of the blood?

(3) In what way do they (I assume that you are talking about Christ-rejecting Gentiles) "take part in worship during this time"?

(4) Where does it actually state that it will be a "temporary covering of sins"?

(5) So are you saying that God approves of these sacrifices?

(6) What affect do they have on Israel, surely this is a Jewish system?

(7) In what way do the Gentile nations participate?

(8) Do they access this temple and receive forgiveness? Do they bring a sacrifice themselves?

(9) Does it have any propitiatiatory or substitutionary qualities?

Paul

wombat
Jun 3rd 2008, 05:29 PM
I am not sure of what you are saying. Could you answer these as clear as possible? I am genuinely trying to understand where you are coming from. They are simply to clarify your previous comments.

(1) What do you mean clean? I assume you are talking about spiritually clean not physically clean before God?

(2) Surely the only ones that have ever been truly clean since the beginning are those who have entered into eternal life by simple faith in Christ (Messiah) and the merits of the blood?

(3) In what way do they (I assume that you are talking about Christ-rejecting Gentiles) "take part in worship during this time"?

(4) Where does it actually state that it will be a "temporary covering of sins"?

(5) So are you saying that God approves of these sacrifices?

(6) What affect do they have on Israel, surely this is a Jewish system?

(7) In what way do the Gentile nations participate?

(8) Do they access this temple and receive forgiveness? Do they bring a sacrifice themselves?

(9) Does it have any propitiatiatory or substitutionary qualities?

Hi again, WPM! No problem. I thought maybe some of my references might help to answer the questions, but I'll try to explain my ideas now per each question. I have to see a student in about 20 minutes, so I may answer part now and part later for you. I'm a fast typer, but not always as fast as I would like.

Yes, you are correct on question 1 and 2. I don't mean to say this is a physical cleanness, as in one takes a shower to get the dirt off before going to church. I'm actually referring to it in the way God spoke about clean and unclean in the Old Testament, the matters of holiness, being separate from the things that defile. The believers in Jesus Christ have the perfect blood of Jesus covering them and washing them from their sins so that we do not need to fear when we come into God's presence. The covering of Jesus' blood is what God sees when we come to Him, not our sins. In Old Testament times, the covering that allowed the people to be clean in God's sight were the sacrifices He ordered. This was temporary covering, needing to be done again and again, not the perfect covering that Jesus' blood allowed. But it was a foreshadow of His sacrifice, and those who lived by faith were counted righteous even though they didn't know about Jesus yet.

Question 3 about in what way do the remnants take part in worship, I would say regards the Scripture verses about how the nations will be required to come up to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Shelters every year. Here's another reference, Zephaniah 3:8-13 speaks about God pouring out His wrath on the kingdoms of the earth, and then says, "On that day I will purify the lips of all people, so that everyone will be able t worship the Lord together. My scattered people who live beyond the rivers of Ethiopia will come to present their offerings. And then you will no longer need to be ashamed of yourselves, for you will no longer be rebels against me. I will remove all the proud and arrogant people from among you. There will be no pride on my holy mountain. Those who are left will be the lowly and the humble, for it is they who trust in the name of the Lord. The people of Israel who survive will do no wrong to each other, never telling lies or deceiving one another..."

Micah 4:1-2 says "In the last days, the Temple of the Lord in Jerusalemwill become the most important place on earth. People from all over the world will go there to worship."

wpm
Jun 3rd 2008, 05:46 PM
Hi again, WPM! No problem. I thought maybe some of my references might help to answer the questions, but I'll try to explain my ideas now per each question. I have to see a student in about 20 minutes, so I may answer part now and part later for you. I'm a fast typer, but not always as fast as I would like.

Yes, you are correct on question 1 and 2. I don't mean to say this is a physical cleanness, as in one takes a shower to get the dirt off before going to church. I'm actually referring to it in the way God spoke about clean and unclean in the Old Testament, the matters of holiness, being separate from the things that defile. The believers in Jesus Christ have the perfect blood of Jesus covering them and washing them from their sins so that we do not need to fear when we come into God's presence. The covering of Jesus' blood is what God sees when we come to Him, not our sins. In Old Testament times, the covering that allowed the people to be clean in God's sight were the sacrifices He ordered. This was temporary covering, needing to be done again and again, not the perfect covering that Jesus' blood allowed. But it was a foreshadow of His sacrifice, and those who lived by faith were counted righteous even though they didn't know about Jesus yet.

Question 3 about in what way do the remnants take part in worship, I would say regards the Scripture verses about how the nations will be required to come up to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Shelters every year. Here's another reference, Zephaniah 3:8-13 speaks about God pouring out His wrath on the kingdoms of the earth, and then says, "On that day I will purify the lips of all people, so that everyone will be able t worship the Lord together. My scattered people who live beyond the rivers of Ethiopia will come to present their offerings. And then you will no longer need to be ashamed of yourselves, for you will no longer be rebels against me. I will remove all the proud and arrogant people from among you. There will be no pride on my holy mountain. Those who are left will be the lowly and the humble, for it is they who trust in the name of the Lord. The people of Israel who survive will do no wrong to each other, never telling lies or deceiving one another..."

Micah 4:1-2 says "In the last days, the Temple of the Lord in Jerusalemwill become the most important place on earth. People from all over the world will go there to worship."

I think I am understanding you. Keep going with your answers. When you do, could you clarify the following additions?

(a) I take it these people from all round the world are Gentiles?
(b) They bring their worship into the temple?
(c) Where is Jesus?

Paul

Nihil Obstat
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:20 PM
This has all been great, and very profitable. Thanks to all. Sorry if I miss some of the questions you asked me; over twenty (long) posts have been added since I last posted, and I'm not sure how I'll catch up. Be patient with me! I was hoping this thread wouldn't take off while I was away, but even though it has, wombat's posts have been very good! I'll do my best to address that which seems most important. Blessings! - Lk.11

wombat
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:10 PM
I think I am understanding you. Keep going with your answers. When you do, could you clarify the following additions?

(a) I take it these people from all round the world are Gentiles?
(b) They bring their worship into the temple?
(c) Where is Jesus?
Hi, I'm back again and ready to keep up the answers. For question (a), yes, these would be the Gentiles from around the world. The Jews who were not among the Christian believers that now reign with Christ would also need to be given coverage for sin, hence they would be making sacrifices for Israel as well. For question (b), yes, it appears they come to the temple to worship the Lord. Jerusalem will be the place of the Lord's throne. Zechariah 8:20-23 says "This is what the Lord Almighty says: People from nations and cities around the world will travel to Jerusalem. The people of one city will say to the people in another, 'Let us go to Jerusalem to ask the Lord to bless us and to seek the Lord Almighty. We are planning to go ourselves.' People from many nations, even powerful nations, will come to Jerusalem to seek the Lord Almighty and to ask the Lord to bless them. This is what the Lord Almighty says: In those days ten people from nations and languages around the world will clutch at the hem of one Jew's robe. And they will say, 'Please let us walk with you, for we have heard that God is with you.'

Jeremiah 3:17 says, "In that day Jerusalem will be known as The Throne of the Lord. All nations will come there to honor the Lord. They will no longer stubbornly follow their own evil desires."

Isaiah 56:6-8 says, "I will also bless the Gentiles who commit themselves o the Lord and serve Him and love His name, who worship Him and do not desecrate the Sabbath day of rst, and who have accepted His covenant. I will bring them also to My holy mountain of Jerusalem and will fill them with joy in My house of prayer. I will accept their burn offerings and sacrifices, because My Temple will be called a house of prayer for all nations. For the Sovereign Lord, who brings back the outcasts of Israel, says: I will bring others, too, besides My people Israel."

As for Question (c), Jesus is the King! His bride, the Church, those who believed in Him during the time of grace, will be reigning with Him over the nations (Revelation 20:4-5). For these people, there is no need for the animal sacrifices. They are made clean forever by the blood of Jesus, having made their choice to live for Him and accept His mercy during the period of grace. But these other survivors from around the world had not made a choice to follow the Lord and accept His mercy during that time period. Notice that at the end of the Millennium, when Satan is let loose one last time to deceive the nations (Revelation 20:7-9) before being finally thrown into the lake of fire (verse 10), this will be like one chance for the survivors to make their choice--almost as if they get another brief period of grace (I'm not sure that's the best way of putting it, but I can't think of another choice of words for the moment). They have lived in the time of Christ's reign, experiencing all the wonderful peace and health and abundance of that time, but now they must decide and take their stand either for or against Him.

More to follow...

wpm
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:32 PM
Hi, I'm back again and ready to keep up the answers. For question (a), yes, these would be the Gentiles from around the world. The Jews who were not among the Christian believers that now reign with Christ would also need to be given coverage for sin, hence they would be making sacrifices for Israel as well. For question (b), yes, it appears they come to the temple to worship the Lord. Jerusalem will be the place of the Lord's throne. Zechariah 8:20-23 says "This is what the Lord Almighty says: People from nations and cities around the world will travel to Jerusalem. The people of one city will say to the people in another, 'Let us go to Jerusalem to ask the Lord to bless us and to seek the Lord Almighty. We are planning to go ourselves.' People from many nations, even powerful nations, will come to Jerusalem to seek the Lord Almighty and to ask the Lord to bless them. This is what the Lord Almighty says: In those days ten people from nations and languages around the world will clutch at the hem of one Jew's robe. And they will say, 'Please let us walk with you, for we have heard that God is with you.'

Jeremiah 3:17 says, "In that day Jerusalem will be known as The Throne of the Lord. All nations will come there to honor the Lord. They will no longer stubbornly follow their own evil desires."

Isaiah 56:6-8 says, "I will also bless the Gentiles who commit themselves o the Lord and serve Him and love His name, who worship Him and do not desecrate the Sabbath day of rst, and who have accepted His covenant. I will bring them also to My holy mountain of Jerusalem and will fill them with joy in My house of prayer. I will accept their burn offerings and sacrifices, because My Temple will be called a house of prayer for all nations. For the Sovereign Lord, who brings back the outcasts of Israel, says: I will bring others, too, besides My people Israel."

As for Question (c), Jesus is the King! His bride, the Church, those who believed in Him during the time of grace, will be reigning with Him over the nations (Revelation 20:4-5). For these people, there is no need for the animal sacrifices. They are made clean forever by the blood of Jesus, having made their choice to live for Him and accept His mercy during the period of grace. But these other survivors from around the world had not made a choice to follow the Lord and accept His mercy during that time period. Notice that at the end of the Millennium, when Satan is let loose one last time to deceive the nations (Revelation 20:7-9) before being finally thrown into the lake of fire (verse 10), this will be like one chance for the survivors to make their choice--almost as if they get another brief period of grace (I'm not sure that's the best way of putting it, but I can't think of another choice of words for the moment). They have lived in the time of Christ's reign, experiencing all the wonderful peace and health and abundance of that time, but now they must decide and take their stand either for or against Him.

More to follow...


I don't want to circumvent the other important questions, but where actually is Jesus during this millennium? Is He in the temple for example, is he some where else? Where is He? I can't seem to see this.

Paul

Raybob
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:45 PM
Hello, Raybob! I don't know if it will be billions. There will be a remnant of people who survive and begin to repopulate the earth. ...


I wonder why the bible says that after the battle, all that remain will be slain with the sword?

Rev 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

Raybob

Cyberseeker
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:47 PM
"People from nations and cities around the world will travel to Jerusalem. The people of one city will say to the people in another, 'Let us go to Jerusalem to ask the Lord to bless us and to seek the Lord Almighty. We are planning to go ourselves.' People from many nations, even powerful nations, will come to Jerusalem"

Anyone care to guess how big the car park around the temple will be?

You know, :idea: town planning regulations and all that stuff.

MailmanGuy
Jun 3rd 2008, 10:22 PM
Pre-mill and reformed is a no-fly, but some need time to put it together.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I prefer to take the words on the page for what they actually say. If we don't, then words can mean anything we want them to be. Charles Spurgen and John MacArthur (just to point out a couple of well known respected names in theological circles) also adhere(d) to the same hermeneutic approach. It really is the only viewpoint that fits nicely together (IMHO) ;)

For more information on the subject, click http://reformedvoices.blogspot.googlepages.com/examiningamillenialism

MailmanGuy
Jun 3rd 2008, 11:45 PM
Israel has only ever had one high priest at a time. How then can you propose the reintroduction the old covenant arrangement with other competing priests while Christ will be there in His eternal office of high priest of the elect?


Long after Zadok passed away, after Israel's division into two kingdoms during Solomon's reign, after the deportation of the northern tribes into Assyria, after the destruction of the temple during the reign of Babylon, Ezekiel wrote in great detail of a temple that has never been built. Given the context of Ezekiel's writing, this temple is commonly held to be a description of the final temple to be built in the New Jerusalem during the Millennium. And when it came time to assign priestly duties, Ezekiel included these details -


"And the chamber whose prospect is toward the north is for the priests, the keepers of the charge of the altar: these are the sons of Zadok among the sons of Levi, which come near to the LORD to minister unto him." (Ezek. 40:46)


"And he said unto me, Son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; These are the ordinances of the altar in the day when they shall make it, to offer burnt offerings thereon, and to sprinkle blood thereon. And thou shalt give to the priests the Levites that be of the seed of Zadok, which approach unto me, to minister unto me, saith the Lord GOD, a young bullock for a sin offering." (Ezek. 43:18-19)


"Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel. And the Levites that are gone away far from me, when Israel went astray, which went astray away from me after their idols; they shall even bear their iniquity. Yet they shall be ministers in my sanctuary, having charge at the gates of the house, and ministering to the house: they shall slay the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall stand before them to minister unto them. Because they ministered unto them before their idols, and caused the house of Israel to fall into iniquity; therefore have I lifted up mine hand against them, saith the Lord GOD, and they shall bear their iniquity. And they shall not come near unto me, to do the office of a priest unto me, nor to come near to any of my holy things, in the most holy place: but they shall bear their shame, and their abominations which they have committed. But I will make them keepers of the charge of the house, for all the service thereof, and for all that shall be done therein. But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of my sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me, they shall come near to me to minister unto me, and they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood, saith the Lord GOD: They shall enter into my sanctuary, and they shall come near to my table, to minister unto me, and they shall keep my charge." (Ezek. 44:9-16)

Two distinct actions are taking place here. (1)The punishment of the Levites who led Israel astray and (2)the restoration of the lineage of Zadok who was faithful. I think it is extremely interesting to note the form that their punishment takes. As you know, way back in Exodus, God chose the Levites to serve in His sanctuary continuously. If He were to cut them off completely, there are some who would say He made a mistake, or chose unwisely.

But, He chose Israel for His own sake, not because they were better, larger or more righteous than the Gentile nations. And likewise, He chose the tribe of Levi "out of" Israel for His own sake. So, God being faithful, keeping covenant with His own word, will see to it that they return to the very job that God assigned them originally. They will serve in His temple. However, because of their years of rebellion, they will work the gates and keep the house; they will not come close to God, they will not enter the holiest places, nor come close to the holy objects. Only the children of faithful Zadok will operate in that capacity.

None of the sacrifices that they will be performing will save or have the capacity to save but they will be doing what they were told to do in the first place which in turn will redound to the glory of God and His Son's finished work.

Merton
Jun 4th 2008, 02:15 AM
There will be only one “Heavenly Jerusalem” upon this current Earth, which will be in The Millennium age. It is also referred to as the “beloved city” in this context. This one has no “man constructed” Temple, not like those of the past, or any that will built by man in this time before the Millennium, which will just be part of a desolation by that time anyway;

But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty is its temple, also the Lamb.
Revelation 21:22 Complete Apostles' Bible
Only the righteous will be able to get inside of it – the others have to stay outside unless they are converted:

Blessed are those who do His commandments, so that their right shall be to the tree of life, and they may enter by the gates into the city. But outside are dogs and drug users and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices a lie. See 21:27.
Revelation 22:14-15 Complete Apostles' Bible
So you deny these particular “readings” in the Book of Revelation? Granted that the Book has interpolations and marginal glosses and is a bit disordered (and more drastically the last 3 chapters) and there is lost text that we do not have, but none of that effects what is addressed here. Those entries were penned by The Seer – the linguistic and stylistic studies were thoroughly studied, and what is referred to here, WAS penned by The Seer. Thus, it is impossible, by the Greek, the Hebrew Idioms used, and the Seer’s unique style, to fuse a different era for this current physical Earth into the Eternal Abode and cities as the same exact one and stature.

“We”? Who are “we”? And what textual support do you have “what” the “Heavenly Jerusalem” is “made of” that will be in the so-called Millennium age? What difference does it make “what” the “Heavenly Jerusalem” is made of for the Millennium that descends upon the Earth since it comes down out of heaven from God (Revelation 21:10)? I look for the new, in and of the Eternal Abode.

You have either altered my post or misread. :( - First of all, I made the distinctions:
1) Heavenly Jerusalem: Millennium (which is shown as descending in 21:10);
2) New Jerusalem: Eternal Abode for the afterlife (which is shown as descending in 21:2).

All saints of all ages are gathered into the New Jerusalem, of the Eternal Abode. While I went to Church and read a little Bible early in my age, I did not become a “Christian” until 1972. The standard teaching for serious exegetical Revelation teachers and students is that only a select group enters into the Millennium, and sees its “beloved city” (“Heavenly Jerusalem”). At the time I became a Christian, it appears that those outside of the exegetical Revelation Teachers and Students, “new” ideas and things started to spread (due to media, books, etc.) that came about then or earlier (as if new inventions in the 1st Millennum A.D. were not enough). I was not even aware of them until much later on. You are not dealing with a "newborn" here. ;)

Again, your reply does not comply with the content of my post in places. So it does not matter how that effects what I am stating – it is the Bible that matters. And despite the disorder of the last 3 Chapters of Revelation, I do not see how anyone misses the fact that even in English, there are TWO DESCENSIONS, which BTW, you did not address;

And he carried me away in spirit onto a great and high mountain, and he showed to me the holy city Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God,
Revelation 21:10 Complete Apostles' Bible

Then I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, having been prepared like a bride having been adorned for her husband.
Revelation 21:2 Complete Apostles' Bible
Start a new thread if you wish, and if things allow me, and God permits, I feel I will be able to participate and will be more than happy to participate. But on that note, let’s remember that I did start a thread in providing the standard exegetical teaching from teachers and learning students prior to 1970’s, and you stated that you would participate, and that thread (puzzlingly) got moved to Contro, which I thought all “well enough” since the Seer modeled some of his writings on the Pseudepigrapha, of which can be quoted over there in that forum. Of course, I wound up importing some text from there to here anyway, but quotations of the Pseudepigrapha will have to be saved for the Contro Forum and that thread. However, I believe “references”
(e.g., 1 Enoch 51:1 <-> Revelation 20:13)
can still be made here though – I think.

While the so-called Millennium is to be a restoration of what was intended in the beginning, and things will be staggeringly far better than what is now and has been, I look for the New Jerusalem, Earth, and Heavens. :pp

Blessings!:)




So you deny these particular “readings” in the Book of Revelation?

No.





Again, your reply does not comply with the content of my post in places. So it does not matter how that effects what I am stating – it is the Bible that matters. And despite the disorder of the last 3 Chapters of Revelation, I do not see how anyone misses the fact that even in English, there are TWO DESCENSIONS, which BTW, you did not address;

And he carried me away in spirit onto a great and high mountain, and he showed to me the holy city Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God,
Revelation 21:10 Complete Apostles' Bible

Then I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, having been prepared like a bride having been adorned for her husband.
Revelation 21:2 Complete Apostles' Bible

There is only one New Jerusalem and you have given no evidence from scripture that the descending of Jerusalem in Rev.21:2 is not the same Jerusalem, and the one descent of the Jerusalem of Rev.21:9 on.

Are these passages describing two whores because John is shown something by the spirit in the wilderness in verse 3 on?

Rev 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will show unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
Rev 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
Rev 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

Did you notice that the effect of the coming down of the New Jerusalem is that God would dwell among men.

Rev 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, andbe their God.
The new Jerusalem is described as having walls and Christ within.

Now why would a New Jerusalem be required on an eternal earth if there are NO people living outside of it. The New Jerusalem described in Rev.ch 21 shows its purpose in its description of it.

I totally reject any idea that an eternal earth requires a Heavenly City, or that they come down from Heaven to dwell on it after the last judgment, especially by reading Mat.ch 13.---

Mat 13:41 The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all the offenses, and those who practice lawlessness.
Mat 13:42 And they will throw them into the furnace of fire; there will be weeping and gnashing of the teeth.
Mat 13:43 Then the righteous will shine out like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. The one having ears to hear, let him hear.

or Mat 25--

Mat 25:31 But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.
Mat 25:32 And before Him shall be gathered all the nations; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
Mat 25:33 And indeed He will set the sheep off His right, but the goats off the left hand.

or Rev.20--

Rev 20:9 And they went up over the breadth of the land and encircled the camp of the saints, and the beloved city. And fire from God came down out of Heaven and burned them down.


Where is the mention of them going up after this to come down again?



In fact I reject the idea that the eternal abode of the saints is on a first creation fresh surfaced rock.


There is such a place as the Third Heaven and it knows no boundaries neither does it have any end to its extent.




Merton.

wombat
Jun 4th 2008, 02:38 AM
I wonder why the bible says that after the battle, all that remain will be slain with the sword?

Rev 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
Hi again, Raybob! This reference is in reference to the beast's army. From verse 20 it reads, "And the beast was captured, and withhim the false prophet who did mighty miracles on behalf of the beast--miracles that deceived all who had accepted the mark of the beast and who worshiped his statue. Both the beast and his false prophet were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. Their entire army was killed by the sharp sword that came out of the mouth of the one riding the white horse. And all the vultures of the sky gorged themselves on the dead bodies.

wombat
Jun 4th 2008, 03:11 AM
I don't want to circumvent the other important questions, but where actually is Jesus during this millennium? Is He in the temple for example, is he some where else? Where is He? I can't seem to see this.
Hi again, WPM! From what I've learned in my studies, Jesus will be doing quite a lot of things during that Millennial Kingdom. Isaiah 24:23 says, "Then the Lord Almighty will mount His throne on Mount Zion. He will rule gloriously in Jerusalem, in the sight of all the leaders of His people. There will be such glory that the brightness of the sun and moon will seem to fade away."

Jeremiah 23:5-6 says that the Righteous Branch (Jesus) will rule with wisdom, doing what is just and right throughout the land.

One interesting Scripture is Isaiah 25:6-10, which says, "In Jerusalem, the Lord Almighty will spread a wonderful feast for everyone around the world. It will be a delicious feast of good food, with clear, well-aged wine and choice beef."

Micah 4:2 indicates that the Lord will teach from the Temple and His word will go out from Jerusalem. People will go to the Temple to learn from Jesus Himself! Isaiah 2:3 also says this.

Micah 4:3-4 says the Lord will settle international disputes. In His role as Prince of Peace, this is one of the things He will be doing. He will stop all wars and military training. Isaiah 2:4 also says this.

I'm sure there will be so much more, too, that Jesus will do. These are just a few of the things I've found.

wombat
Jun 4th 2008, 04:49 AM
(4) Where does it actually state that it will be a "temporary covering of sins"?

(5) So are you saying that God approves of these sacrifices?

(6) What affect do they have on Israel, surely this is a Jewish system?

(7) In what way do the Gentile nations participate?

(8) Do they access this temple and receive forgiveness? Do they bring a sacrifice themselves?

(9) Does it have any propitiatiatory or substitutionary qualities?
Hi again! I'm back to try to answer the rest of the list of questions you had for me. On question 4, I would refer to Hebrews 7, which contrasts the old sacrificial system and Jesus' sacrifice. Verses 26-28 point out that in the old system, the priests needed to offer sacrifices every day, for their own sins as well as for the people. These were temporary coverings at that time, needing to be done again and again during the people's lifetime on earth because the perfect sacrifice had not yet been made. In the Millennium period, it appears that this temporary type of covering will again be used to allow those who had not accepted Christ's perfect sacrifice during the period of grace to come into the Lord's presence and worship at the temple.

On question 5, I would say that if God didn't approve of this, He wouldn't allow it during Jesus' Millennial reign. Jesus will be the world's king at that time, and He will rule with an iron rod, so anything that He doesn't approve won't be happening in His kingdom.

On question 6, it appears that during the Millennium, the Jewish people will be highly honored by the people of the world, no longer in danger from the nations who wanted to destroy them. They will be under God's constant protection. The nations will bring their treasures to Israel, who will in turn give them as an offering to God. Ezekiel 34:26 says "I will cause my people and their homes around my holy hill to be a blessing."

On question 7, I tried to answer that one in a previous answer, regarding the Festival of Shelters, going to Jerusalem to learn from the Lord, etc.

On question 8 & 9, I've got to say that I'm not greatly knowledgeable on all the details of the old sacrifices. I do know that there were several types, including sin offerings, guilt offerings, peace offerings, burnt offerings, and grain offerings. My Bible's commentary for Leviticus 1 says that burnt offerings were made to make payment for sins in general. Grain offerings were voluntary and showed honor to God in worship. Peace offerings expressed gratitude to God. Sin offerings made payment for unintentional sins of uncleanness, neglect, or thoughtlessness. Guilt offerings made payment for sins against God and and people who were injured by the sin. As to whether people will bring their own sacrifices during the Millennium, I can only guess based on the information in Leviticus 1, which seems to indicate yes. Verse 2 says, "Whenever you present offerings to the Lord, you must bring animals from your flocks and herds."

wpm
Jun 4th 2008, 05:27 AM
Hi, WPM! The sacrifices are performed by the Levitical priests in the Jerusalem that will be re-established on earth after Armageddon, and they are for the spiritually unsaved survivors of Armageddon who live in the Millennial period. I do not believe that Christians need this form of sacrifice--Jesus is our one atonement for sin for those who believe in Him.

Are these Levitical priests saved?

Are these Zadok priests saved?

Paul

wombat
Jun 4th 2008, 01:41 PM
Are these Levitical priests saved?

Are these Zadok priests saved?
Hi, WPM! I would think that if these people had become Christians during the age of grace, they would be reigning with Christ in their resurrected, perfect, eternal bodies, never to need another sacrifice because they had made their decision for the Lord in the time before He returned. But if they were part of the remnant who had not been saved by Christ's blood, they would need to have the traditional sacrifices done on their behalf as well. Leviticus 8 speaks of the sacrifices Moses made to the Lord on behalf of Aaron and his sons, with verse 30 saying, "In this way, he made Aaron and his sons and their clothing holy."

My next thoughts don't actually relate to a question that you asked me, but a question I've heard others ask. I've heard people say that, no matter how many plans for one are made, there won't be a temple built in Israel either before or during the 7-year period of the Tribulation era because it would be an affront to Jesus who gave us the perfect sacrifice. But from my understanding most of the Jewish people do not yet believe that Jesus is their Messiah and they don't understand that His sacrifice is their salvation. They just know that Jehovah commanded the Old Testament sacrifices, and they remember His covenants. I believe that they will indeed build a temple, which will be violated by the antiChrist when he breaks his treaty with Israel, but I don't believe that in their hearts they will be constructing it to assault Jesus, but rather to seek their God that they once knew in the only way they know how--by what He told them in the past. They don't understand Jesus' sacrifice yet. But, eventually, they will. Zechariah 12:10-14 says, "Then I will pour out a spirit of grace and prayer on the family of David and on all the people of Jerusalem. They will look on Me whom they have pierced and mourn for Him as for an only son. They will grieve bitterly for Him as for a firstborn son who has died. The sorrow and mourning in Jerusalem on that day will be like the grievous mourning of Hadad-rimmon in the valley of Megiddo. All Israel will weep in profound sorrow, each family by itself, with the husbands and wives in separate groups. The family of David will mourn, along with the family of Nathan, the family of Levi, and the family of Shimei. Each of the surviving families from Judah will mourn separately, husbands and wives apart."

Clifton
Jun 4th 2008, 02:48 PM
I think it is made obvious that one is not going to progress in a discussion judging by the manner of reply to a challenge of a particular belief, and any defence of "I " is not relevent to anything. If you have spent some weeks in the deep then I would be impressed.

Well, “I” have spent years into Revelation in linguistics, exegetical studies by aids of experts whom had (or do have) decades of it, with the knowledge of the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Idioms, manuscripts and versions, related and used literature and material, and more, and provide even Critical apparatuses. Thus “I” learn from the “experts” and “those” experienced in these things. ;)


See I can do that too and nothing of it is necessary or of any value. I have all the values I need, and I shared the standard of that, thus if someone want to take advantage of English Renderings, or rework it, I do not see it as my fault.


There is only one New Jerusalem and you have given no evidence from scripture that the descending of Jerusalem in Rev.21:2 is not the same Jerusalem, and the one descent of the Jerusalem of Rev.21:9 on. Quite the contrary – you reveal here that you cannot defeat what the text explicitly states, and that is all the evidence one has ever needed in the past, and now ;) Of course, again I say, there is only one NEW (Kainos) Jerusalem (the same in 3:12 and addressed Galatians 4:26), and that one comes after the HEAVENLY Jerusalem which is the one that descends for the Millennium. Consider “Kainos” is like, “renewed”, so “something” had to be there to be “renewed.” In fact, The Scriptures (ISR) renders 21:2 in that manner. Fortunately, Greek was and is a very inflected language, and brings out the finer points of these things with better precisions. The distinction is made in the scriptures themselves.


Are these passages describing two whores because John is shown something by the spirit in the wilderness in verse 3 on?

Rev 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will show unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
Rev 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
Rev 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: A weak attempt to make two Jerusalems totally of different statures and contents “as one”, descending twice – that is just about as nonsensical as putting Christ and John the beloved Disciple “as one person”, despite that have different names and statures, worst than the non-biblical concept you had that men getting haircuts means being spiritually beheaded. Now come on Merton, you can do better than these things.


Did you notice that the effect of the coming down of the New Jerusalem is that God would dwell among men. Just as much as I note that the New Jerusalem (the Eternal Abode) has no tree of life as the Heavenly Jerusalem does in the Millennium and more. In the case of the Millennium, those saints reign, and are rulers over the nations. This will not be the case for the New Jerusalem, as “rulers” won’t be needed since the New Jerusalem (the Eternal Abode) will only have the righteous.


Rev 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
The new Jerusalem is described as having walls and Christ within. I believe you are referring the Heavenly Jerusalem. And as I said, for the New Jerusalem is addressed in 21:5a, 4d, 5b; 21:1-4abc.; and 22:3-5, which includes that verse you quote – so?


Now why would a New Jerusalem be required on an eternal earth if there are NO people living outside of it. The New Jerusalem described in Rev.ch 21 shows its purpose in its description of it. See above – in the New Jerusalem (the final and last) which descend that has ALL the saints with it. Typically, the term “New Jerusalem” was an idiom for “Eternal Abode” – The Millennium (ever how long it may be) is NOT the Eternal Abode. Besides, since you are a saint in the here and now, I do not see you or me being there that era – nonetheless, it is interesting and fascinating to know about.


I totally reject any idea that an eternal earth requires a Heavenly City, or that they come down from Heaven to dwell on it after the last judgment, especially by reading Mat.ch 13.---

Mat 13:41 The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all the offenses, and those who practice lawlessness.
Mat 13:42 And they will throw them into the furnace of fire; there will be weeping and gnashing of the teeth.
Mat 13:43 Then the righteous will shine out like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. The one having ears to hear, let him hear.

or Mat 25--

Mat 25:31 But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.
Mat 25:32 And before Him shall be gathered all the nations; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
Mat 25:33 And indeed He will set the sheep off His right, but the goats off the left hand.

or Rev.20--

Rev 20:9 And they went up over the breadth of the land and encircled the camp of the saints, and the beloved city. And fire from God came down out of Heaven and burned them down.

Where is the mention of them going up after this to come down again?
You have muddied the waters here – one moment you are referencing New Jerusalem (the Eternal Abode), confusing it with the other, then next you are referring to the Heavenly Jerusalem, and confusing it with the other. With the exception of 20:9, which applies to the Millennium and the Heavenly Jerusalem (“beloved city” is a term for it),. the scriptures you quote refer to after Millennium, after the Heavenly Jerusalem, and before The New Jerusalem, Earth, and Heavens, after this current physical Earth is sent away. You have changed what I said much worst than last time. I never said “that an eternal earth requires a Heavenly City” – that is what the New Jerusalem is for. The evidence of being raised (in the various modes) is in the scriptures themselves and as for “descending”, that is in referencing of the New Jerusalem.


In fact I reject the idea that the eternal abode of the saints is on a first creation fresh surfaced rock. I have no idea of what you are talking about – we have little idea of what the “metaphysical” (as we term it) will be like for us, and as has been pointed out, this “first created” Earth is sent away. What are you going to do in Eternity if it is placed in a museum in those realms, and you go spectating and come across it? Frown? :lol: Surely not;

And Merton. please try to relate to what I DID state (not what I did not state) and let us accept the scriptures AS-IS. This can be found much more enlightening!


There is such a place as the Third Heaven and it knows no boundaries neither does it have any end to its extent. And old literature says that the New Jerusalem will come from there. You are thinking in today’s terms and our known realms here with the human brain. I doubt the metaphysical will be limited to that – again, the New Jerusalem, which comes after the Millennium, is an idiom for Eternal Abode – we do not know what kind of transformations will occur. Even for the select few that will be in the Millennium, a transformation will be required for the new environment and that population and repopulating.


I think that men are reluctant to accept anything further than their own minds can grasp. How self-contradictory! :confused - See my above paragraph.


We can all have the same problem, but some are moving on more than others. Ah, but the direction and path are important. :P


I wouldn't rely on books like Enoch and the like for anything. You skewed what I said – I pointed out that The Seer, John, modeled some of his work on some of the Pseudepigrapha (and other materials) to convey what he saw and to make his statements (or just make quotes from those material), and one of the main ones out of the Pseudepigrapha he used was correlated to 1 Enoch as we have it today. Without knowledge of the Pseudepigrapha, it is impossible for an exegesis, etc. to understand The Seer – such literature was common back in them days. So generally, we depend on an exegetical, (more than one is good), to sort that out, whom had/has knowledge of the Pseudepigrapha, and whom better than the ones that provided the British-English translations of the Pseudepigrapha themselves?


See, now you got me doing it. Doing what? Posting Front masking subliminal messages secretly embedded in the post? :lol:

Blessings.

haybark
Jun 4th 2008, 03:48 PM
I've been wrestling with this for years, and every few months revise my conclusion. What bothers me is that I see clearly in the word that during the millennium will be sin offerings commanded by Jesus Himself for the atonement of sins. I refuse to compromise what the word plainly says, spiritualizing it away, yet I deny the simple and common answer that they are memorial sacrifices (since it is equally straight forward that the offerings do something). And, pretty much the only reason I've found anyone to be Amil is because of this Scriptural paradox! Here's my latest thoughts. Let me know what you think (and Pre-mils, please give me feedback as well). Thanks!

1) Jesus' blood is sufficient to atone for the sins of the entire world (1 John 2:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:2;&version=31;)).

2) However, Jesus only makes atonement for those sins brought before Him (1 John 1:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%201:9;&version=31;)).

3) The two goats on the Day of Atonement were considered one sacrifice (Lev. 16:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016:5;&version=50;)) for the sins the people grieved over (v.31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016:31;&version=50;)).

4) In "millennial" prophecies, there is no mention of the Day of Atonement (though other Jewish feast days are, as are sacrifices).

5) Jesus' blood was greater than the offerings of bulls and goats made on the Day of Atonement (Heb. 9:11-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:11-15;&version=50;)).

6) The daily sin offerings were heaped up into the temple throughout the year, and the Day of Atonement cleansed the temple.

7) Jesus, our High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, cleansed the temple in heaven with His own blood once for all (Heb. 9:23-26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:23-26;&version=50;)).

8) And yet, Scripture tells us Jesus will forever dwell in a temple in Jerusalem (Eze. 43:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2043:7;&version=50;)), commanding sin offerings (vv.19-27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2043:19-27;&version=50;)).

9) There will be people in the millennium without resurrected bodies (Isa. 65:20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2065:20;&version=50;); 66:19-21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2066:19-21;&version=50;); Zech. 14:16-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%2014:16-19;&version=50;); Rev. 19:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2019:15;&version=50;); 20:7-9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:7-10;&version=50;); etc).

10) These will bring their sins into the temple by animal sacrifice to be atoned by Jesus' blood (Ps. 51:17-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2051:17-19;&version=50;); 118:26-27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20118:26-27;&version=50;); Isa. 56:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2056:7;&version=50;)).

Basically, what I'm claiming here, is that Jesus' sacrifice (as put forth in the book of Hebrews) was once for all, in a similar yet greater way as the Day of Atonement was once a year for all. His death was not a picture of the daily sin and trespass offerings made by individuals, but only of the offering made on the Day of Atonement by the high priest. (True, this offering was not by use of a lamb; however, Jesus being called "the slain Lamb" more likely refers to either Isa. 53 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2053;&version=50;) or Ex. 12-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2012-13;&version=50;).) And because the Day of Atonement was the only day when all the sins (having been heaped up in the temple throughout the year) would be atoned for and removed from their midst, so too Jesus' expiatory death atones for all sins laid up in heaven's temple, taking them away that they are remembered no more.

Presently there is no earthly temple in Jerusalem in which to perform sacrifices for sin. However, in the millennium, there will be (Zech. 6:11-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%206:11-15;&version=50;)). Those who sin unintentionally will take their offering to the temple in order to make atonement for their sin. The sin is not laid up in the temple for a later day and a second sacrifice, but is instead taken in by the animal's blood and then immediately taken away by Jesus' blood. The manifest glory of God will be present in a far more remarkable way than in Moses' day (Rev. 21:9-22:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021:9-22:5;&version=50;)), and people will not so easily find themselves sinning. Mortals at the beginning of the millennium (as opposed to at the end - Rev. 20:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:8;&version=50;)) will also be as rare as the precious gold of Ophir (Isa. 13:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2013:12;&version=50;)), so I imagine most will dwell in and around Israel (Isa. 2:2-4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%202:2-4;&version=50;); Zech. 8:20-23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%208:20-23;&version=50;); 14:16-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%2014:16-19;&version=50;)).

To me, a Gentile, this makes sense. If you're a Messianic Jew, definitely comment on this! - Lk.11

Dude, I really appreciate your zeal, but really. The deal is done. And to think that the Lord is instituting animal sacrifice in the time when the "restoration of all things" is in full swing, is repugnant to me. We had seen enough death in the trib to suit anybody, let alon what others had to face through out the ages. NO MORE DYING THERE, remember? The creation it self is groaning and travailing, waiting for this glorious day. It groans under the weight of the corruption of Adam and a fallen race ruled by satan. the Lord isn't going to further burden them again with this sacrifice during His perfect reign on the earth.

John146
Jun 4th 2008, 04:20 PM
Fascinating - I heard the same last week. However, in the text and the related texts, they are definitely not the same. How does the "one and the same" thing descend to Earth TWICE out of Heaven??? Makes no sense, even looking at it in English. I'm eager to hear this. Of course, the NEW Jerusalem is mentioned first as descending in the traditional order of the text of Revelation, and the Heavenly Jerusalem (the beloved city, and as I recall, the Holy City on the Holy Mountain, or something like that, in ancient Hebrew Literature), is mentioned later as descending upon the Earth, though it is mentioned second as descending, and that is the one for the Millennium;

Rev 21:9-27 is just a recapitulation of what is spoken about in Rev 21:1-8. There is no difference between the new Jerusalem of Rev 21:2 and the holy Jerusalem of Rev 21:9. Both are called the bride of the Lamb. Does the Lamb have two brides? No. It is much like what we see in Genesis 1 and 2. Did God create man twice or is Genesis 2 a retelling or recapitulation of Genesis 1 with more details? The answer is obvious. In the same way, Rev 21 is not depicting two different Jerusalems coming down from heaven. Frankly, that would be silly and would make no sense at all. It is the same singular new, holy and heavenly Jerusalem that is simply described in more detail in verses 9-27 compared to verses 1-8.

John146
Jun 4th 2008, 04:27 PM
I, for one, am glad that animal sacrifices have been done away with forever because of Christ's all-sufficient one-time for all sacrifice on the cross. To think that animal sacrifices would ever be required again is an insult to Christ's all-sufficient and completed work on the cross. End of story.

markdrums
Jun 4th 2008, 04:39 PM
Rev 21:9-27 is just a recapitulation of what is spoken about in Rev 21:1-8. There is no difference between the new Jerusalem of Rev 21:2 and the holy Jerusalem of Rev 21:9. Both are called the bride of the Lamb. Does the Lamb have two brides? No. It is much like what we see in Genesis 1 and 2. Did God create man twice or is Genesis 2 a retelling or recapitulation of Genesis 1 with more details? The answer is obvious. In the same way, Rev 21 is not depicting two different Jerusalems coming down from heaven. Frankly, that would be silly and would make no sense at all. It is the same singular new, holy and heavenly Jerusalem that is simply described in more detail in verses 9-27 compared to verses 1-8.


I have to agree. There are several examples throughout the Bible where the case is the same as this.
We're told of something in one verse, and then in a later verse, (or chapter) there's more detail given, or it's described from another vantage point. All the while relating to the same, single thing / event.

Clifton
Jun 4th 2008, 05:09 PM
Rev 21:9-27 is just a recapitulation of what is spoken about in Rev 21:1-8. There is no difference between the new Jerusalem of Rev 21:2 and the holy Jerusalem of Rev 21:9. Both are called the bride of the Lamb. Does the Lamb have two brides? No. It is much like what we see in Genesis 1 and 2. Did God create man twice or is Genesis 2 a retelling or recapitulation of Genesis 1 with more details? The answer is obvious. In the same way, Rev 21 is not depicting two different Jerusalems coming down from heaven. Frankly, that would be silly and would make no sense at all. It is the same singular new, holy and heavenly Jerusalem that is simply described in more detail in verses 9-27 compared to verses 1-8.

It is not a bad thing not to know about Hebrew Idioms put over into one’s own form of Greek as done by a Palestine Jew, that being the Seer, John The Presbyter. The system you adhere to has caused a intertwining and changes of the texts and linguistics to conform to its inventions, thus, being influenced, that is no doubt why you see it as “Silly” – by your terms, it would be, but I am not going by your terms.;) Thankfully, we have historical literature and knowledge.:)

YOU state, “Rev 21 is not depicting two different Jerusalems coming down from heaven”. In one sense it states just that, but would be better said as two statures of Jerusalem (beyond the Earthy man-constructed cities).

And as for your statement “Rev 21:9-27 is just a recapitulation of what is spoken about in Rev 21:1-8”, that is not grammatically, and not linguistically correct. The Heavenly Jerusalem is replaced or displaved with that of a higher nature and stature, referred to as the New Jerusalem – it is really just an idiom for the Eternal Abode (there is no “tree of life” expressed there for the New Jerusalem – this is all together different – this is eternity);

WHERE THE HEAVEN JERUSALEM, or BELOVED CITY, occurs and is addressed here:

Revelation 21:9-22:2, 14-15, 17. Vision of the Heavenly Jerusalem, which descends from Heaven and settles on the ruined site of the earthly Jerusalem. This Heavenly City is at once the seat of the Messianic Kingdom, the abode of the glorified martyrs, and the center of the evangelizing agencies of the surviving nations on the earth, during the millennial period. Though it is not stated, we must conclude that alike the glorified martyrs and the Heavenly Jerusalem are withdrawn from the earth before the final judgment.

The tree of life (22:2, 14) appears to be for the new converts (22:2; cf. 11:15, 14:6, 7, and 15:3, 4) and not for the martyrs, since the martyrs are already clothed with their Heavenly bodies and are not subject to the second death. They had already eaten of it in the Paradise of God (2:7).

As one of the seven angels of the Bowls showed Rome -- the capital of the kingdom of the Antichrist -- to The Seer 17:1, so he now shows him the Heavenly Jerusalem.


WHERE THE NEW JERUSALEM, or ETERNAL ABODE, occurs and is addressed here:

Revelation 21:5a, 4d, 5b; 21:1-4abc.; and 22:3-5. Declaration by God that the former things have passed away and that He creates all things new. Forthwith The Seer sees the new heaven and the new earth and the New Jerusalem coming down, adorned as a bride for her husband. God tabernacles with men. No more grief or pain or tears or death. All the faithful are to reign with Christ for ever and ever (22:5), whereas in the Millennial Kingdom only the risen martyrs were to reign for a thousand years.

Thus, your thesis to me does not concur with the texts, grammatical constructions, and linguistics of this, and sounds nonsensical. Even in English it is shown that the descensions are of different statures of what descends. As for Genesis 1 & 2, the first man is still called Adam. We have different titles given here in Revelation, which concur with previous Jewish Literature, and it makes no sense to say what is descending twice which pertains to different natures and statures – otherwise, if it were one and the same, exactly, you will see this “recap” of yours stating, that which descended, instead of seeing it “again” descending. Remember the terms in Genesis 2, i.e. the things that WERE created, and is not a retelling or recapitulation, but is a back referencing (and quite little of it, at that, so hardly a more "detailed" version) to address the new text. Genesis gives a "on the scene" pictorial (as if we were presently there).

Blessings!

John146
Jun 4th 2008, 07:10 PM
It is not a bad thing not to know about Hebrew Idioms put over into one’s own form of Greek as done by a Palestine Jew, that being the Seer, John The Presbyter. The system you adhere to has caused a intertwining and changes of the texts and linguistics to conform to its inventions, thus, being influenced, that is no doubt why you see it as “Silly” – by your terms, it would be, but I am not going by your terms.;) Thankfully, we have historical literature and knowledge.:)

YOU state, “Rev 21 is not depicting two different Jerusalems coming down from heaven”. In one sense it states just that, but would be better said as two statures of Jerusalem (beyond the Earthy man-constructed cities).

And as for your statement “Rev 21:9-27 is just a recapitulation of what is spoken about in Rev 21:1-8”, that is not grammatically, and not linguistically correct. The Heavenly Jerusalem is replaced or displaved with that of a higher nature and stature, referred to as the New Jerusalem – it is really just an idiom for the Eternal Abode (there is no “tree of life” expressed there for the New Jerusalem – this is all together different – this is eternity);

WHERE THE HEAVEN JERUSALEM, or BELOVED CITY, occurs and is addressed here:

Revelation 21:9-22:2, 14-15, 17. Vision of the Heavenly Jerusalem, which descends from Heaven and settles on the ruined site of the earthly Jerusalem. This Heavenly City is at once the seat of the Messianic Kingdom, the abode of the glorified martyrs, and the center of the evangelizing agencies of the surviving nations on the earth, during the millennial period. Though it is not stated, we must conclude that alike the glorified martyrs and the Heavenly Jerusalem are withdrawn from the earth before the final judgment.

The tree of life (22:2, 14) appears to be for the new converts (22:2; cf. 11:15, 14:6, 7, and 15:3, 4) and not for the martyrs, since the martyrs are already clothed with their Heavenly bodies and are not subject to the second death. They had already eaten of it in the Paradise of God (2:7).

As one of the seven angels of the Bowls showed Rome -- the capital of the kingdom of the Antichrist -- to The Seer 17:1, so he now shows him the Heavenly Jerusalem.


WHERE THE NEW JERUSALEM, or ETERNAL ABODE, occurs and is addressed here:

Revelation 21:5a, 4d, 5b; 21:1-4abc.; and 22:3-5. Declaration by God that the former things have passed away and that He creates all things new. Forthwith The Seer sees the new heaven and the new earth and the New Jerusalem coming down, adorned as a bride for her husband. God tabernacles with men. No more grief or pain or tears or death. All the faithful are to reign with Christ for ever and ever (22:5), whereas in the Millennial Kingdom only the risen martyrs were to reign for a thousand years.

Thus, your thesis to me does not concur with the texts, grammatical constructions, and linguistics of this, and sounds nonsensical. Even in English it is shown that the descensions are of different statures of what descends. As for Genesis 1 & 2, the first man is still called Adam. We have different titles given here in Revelation, which concur with previous Jewish Literature, and it makes no sense to say what is descending twice which pertains to different natures and statures – otherwise, if it were one and the same, exactly, you will see this “recap” of yours stating, that which descended, instead of seeing it “again” descending. Remember the terms in Genesis 2, i.e. the things that WERE created, and is not a retelling or recapitulation, but is a back referencing (and quite little of it, at that, so hardly a more "detailed" version) to address the new text. Genesis gives a "on the scene" pictorial (as if we were presently there).

Blessings!

You can stick to your convoluted ideas if you want to, but I'll stick to what I see is clearly speaking of the very same new, holy Jerusalem in both Rev 21:2 and Rev 21:9. It descends once from heaven to the new earth and that will occur following the judgment.

Also, I didn't mean to say that Genesis 2 has more details than Genesis 1, but that it provides more detail in addition to what is covered in Genesis 1. The same is true regarding the new Jerusalem in Revelation 21:9-27, which gives added details regarding the new Jerusalem not given previously in Rev 21:1-8.

Clifton
Jun 4th 2008, 09:16 PM
You can stick to your convoluted ideas if you want to, but I'll stick to what I see is clearly speaking of the very same new, holy Jerusalem in both Rev 21:2 and Rev 21:9. It descends once from heaven to the new earth and that will occur following the judgment.

Yea, the Heavenly Jerusalem (the phrase here without your "addition" of "new", which has NO Textual Support; IOW: ZERO), it descends once, and then the New Jerusalem descends after the Millennium and Judgment. As to my "convoluted ideas", I'll stick to the scriptures and the original languages, grammatical constructions, and linguistics of them. So, you see, my "convoluted ideas" are no mine, they are the scriptures - of course, this is typical of one that reworks any text in front of them. The fact that you adhere to a system that overshadows that is your problem. If you do not want to deal with that, you should have the courtesy for us that wish to stick to them - I do not have to drop, add, overlap, break apart and combine words of the texts on my end, nor evade, or put my hands over my eyes. If I cannot answer as of yet, I will say so, so I am happy and grateful that I am on sturdy and solid foundation.:pp


Also, I didn't mean to say that Genesis 2 has more details than Genesis 1, but that it provides more detail in addition to what is covered in Genesis 1. The same is true regarding the new Jerusalem in Revelation 21:9-27, which gives added details regarding the new Jerusalem not given previously in Rev 21:1-8.Patently False, and not in align with those scriptures, and the grammatical structure does not support or even hint of such a thing - as I said, the other Jerusalem, of which you turn "two statures and natures into one" (an earthly one with an eternal one), does not say anything like, 'and as for the Jerusalem that descended...{here are the better details}', as you try to make it appear, and the New Jerusalem will be far better than that in The Millennium, the Heavenly Jerusalem - the New Jerusalem is ETERNAL, which is the one I look for - The Seer used Hebrew Idioms and his distinctions were made obvious (even in English, it is obvious);

Your system always requires a reworking and the reshaping of the actual texts, which leaves the question to be asked, which I think I asked you before, "does what your system convey translate BACK into the languages hence where they came from, even synonymously?" Seek that which is within - I would not be surprised if you already know the correct answer is an emphatic "NO" - but what I have stated here DOES. I can always make sure of that. But you have made it more than clear that you have issues with us that have been acquainted with Hebrew and Greek for many years, since that is where the English comes from - the Hebrew and Greek is an "interference" with aberrancies which cannot tackle with that, we know.:P

What will come next from your system's training manual? John 4:46 to "prove" we are to pour a packet of powder into water to make Kool-Aid?:lol: I mean, no joke ... it would not surprise me in the least.:yes:

Blessings!:wave:

Clifton
Jun 4th 2008, 09:57 PM
As for Question (c), Jesus is the King! His bride, the Church, those who believed in Him during the time of grace, will be reigning with Him over the nations (Revelation 20:4-5). For these people, there is no need for the animal sacrifices.

True - there will be no animal sacrifices in the Millennium (that is what this OP is about, I guess). There will be animals there though, and will live in peace together - the wild with the domestic. It is in Isaiah Chapters 11 (where it is better addressed) and Chapter 65.


Notice that at the end of the Millennium, when Satan is let loose one last time to deceive the nations (Revelation 20:7-9) before being finally thrown into the lake of fire (verse 10), this will be like one chance for the survivors to make their choice--almost as if they get another brief period of grace (I'm not sure that's the best way of putting it, but I can't think of another choice of words for the moment). They have lived in the time of Christ's reign, experiencing all the wonderful peace and health and abundance of that time, but now they must decide and take their stand either for or against Him.

Better said, as the time when the saints will reign with Christ. The sinner and unrepentant's life will be cut short, to about 100 years of age. Others will live as long as the tree, though no one is quite sure which "tree" is being referred to here, so we can only speculate. I would guess the Olive Tree - I guess that this is due to the many references to "Olive", but hard to tell. I do have a breakdown of the trees that are in the Bible and their average lives.

Good stuff!

Do you feel you will be in the Millennium? It has long been taught that only a select group will be in that era, but I have noticed recently, that some have all saints there. But I do not concur with that.

Blessings.

wombat
Jun 4th 2008, 10:30 PM
Do you feel you will be in the Millennium? It has long been taught that only a select group will be in that era, but I have noticed recently, that some have all saints there. But I do not concur with that.
Hi, Clifton! Yes, I do feel that I will be taking part in the Millennial Kingdom as a believer in Christ and thus part of the body that is called His Bride. Here's my thoughts on how the believers are part of that era. First, Jesus has to return and take the believers up to be with Him (the Rapture of the Church), which depending on your view may be pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib. Then, when He comes down to earth to bring the enemies of Israel to defeat and to stop the battle of Armageddon, He brings us believers along with Him. This is very exciting to me to imagine how it will be at that time. For references, Jude verse 14 and 15 say, "The Lord is coming with thousands of His holy ones. He will bring the people of the world to judgment..." Zechariah 14:4-5 speaks of the valley that is created when the Mount of Olives splits apart at the moment Jesus' feet stand on the Mount. The people of Israel are told that they will flee through that valley to safety. Zechariah states, "Then the Lord my God will come and all His holy ones with Him."

(As a side note, check out verse 9-11, which says, "And the Lord will be king over all the earth. on that day there will be one Lord--His name alone will be worshipped. All the land from Geba, north of Judah, to Rimmon, south of Jerusalem, will become one vast plain. But Jerusalem will be raised up in its original place and will be inhabited all the way from the Benjamin Gate over to the site of the old gate, then to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the king's winepresses. And Jerusalem will be filled, safe at last, never again to be cursed and destroyed." Here is Scriptural reference to support that the earthly Jerusalem will be there during the Millennial Reign, as distinct from the New Jerusalem, the heavenly Jerusalem.)

Back to the original topic, though. Revelation 14:1 speaks of the 144,000 Jewish witnesses standing with Jesus on Mount Zion. Revelation 19:11-14 speaks of Jesus on a white horse heading to war against the nations. "The armies of heaven, dressed in pure white linen, followed Him on white horses." This reference to being dressed in pure white linen indicates that this army consists of His believers, His bride that was dressed in pure white linen for the Marriage of the Lamb (Revelation 3:5, Revelation 19:7-8).

I may have to leave in a minute to see a student, but I'll come back later to continue about the saints during the Millennium.

Merton
Jun 4th 2008, 10:35 PM
Well, “I” have spent years into Revelation in linguistics, exegetical studies by aids of experts whom had (or do have) decades of it, with the knowledge of the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Idioms, manuscripts and versions, related and used literature and material, and more, and provide even Critical apparatuses. Thus “I” learn from the “experts” and “those” experienced in these things. ;)

Jesus didn't learn from them, and He never advised anyone else to either.


You make the mistake of not realizing that the "new" is in reference to the Holy City not being the old city which fell into sin.

Isa 1:21 Oh how the faithful city has become a harlot! She was full of justice; righteousness lodged in it. But now, murderers!
Isa 1:22 Your silver has become dross; your wine is diluted with water.
Isa 1:23 Your princes are rebellious and companions of thieves. Everyone loves a bribe, and is pursuing rewards. They do not judge the orphan, nor does the cause of the widow come to them,
Isa 1:24 and says the Lord, Jehovah of Hosts, the mighty One of Israel, Alas! I will be eased of My foes, and avenge Myself of My enemies.
Isa 1:25 And I will return My hand on you, and refine your dross, as with lye, and turn aside all your alloy.
Isa 1:26 And I will return your judges as at the first; and your advisors, as at the beginning; then you shall be called the city of righteousness, a faithful city.
Isa 1:27 Zion shall be redeemed with justice, and her returning ones with righteousness.



If you look at the Temple in Ezekiel then you will find that Christ dwells forever in it. This is because the Ezekiel Temple describes the functioning aspects of the New Jerusalem (there is only ever one) which began at Pentecost and goes right through to the end of the millennium, with the mention of its reigning with the resurrected saints when they receive ther inheritances in it.

The fact that you think that I was speaking of "beheaded" to mean having a haircut , and that you say you will not be reigning with Christ in the millennium, is telling of your position of relying upon the word of others

That is not an uncommon position.


Act 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.



Merton.

Clifton
Jun 4th 2008, 10:48 PM
Hi, Clifton! Yes, I do feel that I will be taking part in the Millennial Kingdom as a believer in Christ and thus part of the body that is called His Bride. Here's my thoughts on how the believers are part of that era. First, Jesus has to return and take the believers up to be with Him (the Rapture of the Church), which depending on your view may be pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib. Then, when He comes down to earth to bring the enemies of Israel to defeat and to stop the battle of Armageddon, He brings us believers along with Him. This is very exciting to me to imagine how it will be at that time. For references, Jude verse 14 and 15 say, "The Lord is coming with thousands of His holy ones. He will bring the people of the world to judgment..." Zechariah 14:4-5 speaks of the valley that is created when the Mount of Olives splits apart at the moment Jesus' feet stand on the Mount. The people of Israel are told that they will flee through that valley to safety. Zechariah states, "Then the Lord my God will come and all His holy ones with Him."

(As a side note, check out verse 9-11, which says, "And the Lord will be king over all the earth. on that day there will be one Lord--His name alone will be worshipped. All the land from Geba, north of Judah, to Rimmon, south of Jerusalem, will become one vast plain. But Jerusalem will be raised up in its original place and will be inhabited all the way from the Benjamin Gate over to the site of the old gate, then to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the king's winepresses. And Jerusalem will be filled, safe at last, never again to be cursed and destroyed." Here is Scriptural reference to support that the earthly Jerusalem will be there during the Millennial Reign, as distinct from the New Jerusalem, the heavenly Jerusalem.)

Back to the original topic, though. Revelation 14:1 speaks of the 144,000 Jewish witnesses standing with Jesus on Mount Zion. Revelation 19:11-14 speaks of Jesus on a white horse heading to war against the nations. "The armies of heaven, dressed in pure white linen, followed Him on white horses." This reference to being dressed in pure white linen indicates that this army consists of His believers, His bride that was dressed in pure white linen for the Marriage of the Lamb (Revelation 3:5, Revelation 19:7-8).

I may have to leave in a minute to see a student, but I'll come back later to continue about the saints during the Millennium.

Thanks for the input! ;) I had started a thread asking others as to whom they believed will be in the Millennium. I was curious as to what was going out there in regards to this. If you would like to make such input on that there too, it is here in this forum at:

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=125044

Blessings!

Clifton
Jun 4th 2008, 11:32 PM
Jesus didn't learn from them, and He never advised anyone else to either.

We learn from the historical records that have been transmitted down throughout history from Yeshua.


Why are you disregarding His instructions?And just what is it of His Instructions that YOU (as my Judge) claim I am disregarding? Huh?




Isa 1:21 Oh how the faithful city has become a harlot! She was full of justice; righteousness lodged in it. But now, murderers!
Isa 1:22 Your silver has become dross; your wine is diluted with water.
Isa 1:23 Your princes are rebellious and companions of thieves. Everyone loves a bribe, and is pursuing rewards. They do not judge the orphan, nor does the cause of the widow come to them,
Isa 1:24 and says the Lord, Jehovah of Hosts, the mighty One of Israel, Alas! I will be eased of My foes, and avenge Myself of My enemies.
Isa 1:25 And I will return My hand on you, and refine your dross, as with lye, and turn aside all your alloy.
Isa 1:26 And I will return your judges as at the first; and your advisors, as at the beginning; then you shall be called the city of righteousness, a faithful city.
Isa 1:27 Zion shall be redeemed with justice, and her returning ones with righteousness.

[quote] It is best to follow scripture. You have gone outside of scripture while claiming to be taught by it.I make no mistake here - it is not new knowledge either or my "own" ideas. It is scripture. Lets see how all this is my "own" ideas - when did John Wesley live? June 29, 1703 to March 2, 1791. And no Merton, I was not born before 1703 A.D. - I am an old geezer, that not that old!

Let's look at John Wesley's exegesis on Revelation 21:2;
The new heaven, the new earth, and the new Jerusalem, are closely connected. This city is wholly new, belonging not to this world, not to the millennium, but to eternity. This appears from the series of the vision, the magnificence of the description, and the opposition of this city to the second death. Coming down = In the very act of descending.
So the so-called "ideas" are not mine - The knowledge that there are two statures of Jerusalem beyond this age has been with us for ages, and prior to the Hippy era, was the standard teaching. TWO Descensions means TWO different (in some way or another) things. It is amazing that people that get into these new things and new age stuff that fail to see the simplicity of what is there.


If you look at the Temple in Ezekiel then you will find that Christ dwells forever in it. This is because the Ezekiel Temple describes the functioning aspects of the New Jerusalem (there is only ever one) which began at Pentecost and goes right through to the end of the millennium, with the mention of its reigning with the resurrected saints when they receive ther inheritances in it.That is the Heavenly Jerusalem, and of course there is only one NEW (KAINOS!) Jerusalem, which was an idiom for THE ETERNAL ABODE. You seemed to be persisted on combining the earthly with the Eternal. Why is that? Looks look at Wesley's exegesis on 21:10, of a different DESCENSION - don't know much about the Weslyans, but John here followed the standard:
Rev 21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit - The same expression as before, Rev_17:3. And showed me the holy city Jerusalem - The old city is now forgotten, so that this is no longer termed the new, but absolutely Jerusalem. O how did St. John long to enter in! but the time was not yet come. Ezekiel also describes "the holy city," and what pertains thereto, Eze. 40:1-48:35, but a city quite different from the old Jerusalem, as it was either before or after the Babylonish captivity. The descriptions of the prophet and of the apostle agree in many particulars; but in many more they differ. Ezekiel expressly describes the temple, and the worship of God therein, closely alluding to the Levitical service. But St. John saw no temple, and describes the city far more large, glorious, and heavenly than the prophet. Yet that which he describes is the same city; but as it subsisted soon after the destruction of the beast. This being observed, both the prophecies agree together and one may explain the other.

The fact that you think that I was speaking of "beheaded" to mean having a haircut , and that you say you will not be reigning with Christ in the millennium, is telling of your position of relying upon the word of others and not having heard Christ speaking to you of what your future could be.It was you that made the quotes - my position is with the Bible - don't expect me to go with human-only inventions. And you speak boldly and out of line in saying "I not having heard Christ" - you have been caught in fibs, and not to mention, changed my words. I am acquainted with the Hebrew and Greek, so I am not "relying" upon "others" as you are - I can confirm the statements of others - since all we have left is historical data, that is all we have to "rely on others" for our faith to learn besides faith itself. You can get this by using a Bible.


That is not an uncommon position.No, apparently now, but it is a new position.


Act 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

It takes time to progress and grow. I just happen to have decades of progression and grow, so by no means, do I look "down" on you; I am a servant of the Servant for the servants of the same Servant. But when the scriptures are pointed out to you, and you resort to something "new" to fudge them, then how shall you progress in such a manner as that? Only time will tell, but eventually, I think you will be just fine and do well.;)

Gotta go mow.

Blessings.

Merton
Jun 5th 2008, 02:37 AM
You skewed what I said – I pointed out that The Seer, John, modeled some of his work on some of the Pseudepigrapha (and other materials) to convey what he saw and to make his statements (or just make quotes from those material), and one of the main ones out of the Pseudepigrapha he used was correlated to 1 Enoch as we have it today. Without knowledge of the Pseudepigrapha, it is impossible for an exegesis, etc. to understand The Seer – such literature was common back in them days. So generally, we depend on an exegetical, (more than one is good), to sort that out, whom had/has knowledge of the Pseudepigrapha, and whom better than the ones that provided the British-English translations of the Pseudepigrapha themselves?

.


That is not the method that Jesus advised us to use--

Joh 16:13 But when that One comes, the Spirit of Truth, He will guide you into all Truth, for He will not speak from Himself, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will announce the coming things to you.

A the complete absence of any mention in the scriptures of the OT that Jerusalem comes down twice

John the apostle did NOT write the book of Revelation by using this kind of imformation that you resort to.

John wrote what he was told to write, directly from Gods mouth.

Your reliance on explanations from the words of other than those expressed by the Author and inspired by Him to you, is the reason for all of the different understandings abounding today.

Such leanings on the words of other men is forbidden by God Himself,

Did you realise that John himself did not understand all that he wrote, so that he was not relying on your sources at all and that is obvious because your view disagrees with many of the scriptures and you stumble over one greek word because you do not see its application from the OT scriptures which have given to you.




Merton.

wombat
Jun 5th 2008, 02:46 AM
I'll come back later to continue about the saints during the Millennium.
Hello again! In continuation of my last reference to the armies of heaven, Revelation 19:19 also indicates that the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies will gather to fight against Jesus (who is on a white horse) and the believers who have come with Him (also on white horses). Sounds like we will all be taking part in some warfare at that time--but no fears! Jesus will win! Interestingly, Isaiah 30:27-33 speaks of the battle in which Jesus will destroy His enemies, and in verse 32 it says "And as the Lord strikes them, His people will keep time with the music of tambourines and harps."

After the battle is done and the Millennial Kingdom is being ushered in, we Christians will be ruling the nations with Jesus. Daniel 7:18-27 says "But in the end, the holy people of the Most High will be given the kingdom, and they will rule forever and ever" (vs. 18). Then in verse 21 and 22 it speaks of the antiChrist waging war against God's people and defeating them until the Lord came and judged in their favor "and the time arrived for the holy people to take over the kingdom." Verse 27 says, "Then the sovereignty, power, and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be given to the holy people of the Most High. They will rule forever, and all rulers will serve and obey them."

Revelation 20:4 speaks about the Millennial period, saying, "Then I saw thrones, and the people sitting on them had been given the authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony about Jesus, for proclaiming the word of God. And I saw the souls of those who had not worshiped the beast or his statue, nor accepted his mark on their forehead or their hands. They came to life again, and they reigned with Christ for a thousand years." So not only have the 144,000 Jewish Witnesses returned to earth with Jesus, but also all of those who will have been martyred for His name's sake, before and during the tribulation period. Revelation 3:21 says that Jesus will invite all who are victorious to sit with Him on His throne. The victorious are the believers who perservere for Christ, even while living in dangerous times of persecution. Revelation 2:26-28 also speaks of this. "To all who are victorious, who obey Me to the very end, I will give authority over all the nations. They will rule the nations with an iron rod and smash them like clay pots. They will have the same authority I received from My Father, and I will also give them the morning star!"

Yes, I am looking forward to being in that Millennial Kingdom and also to seeing you all there as we reign with Jesus together. Just a question for you all: Do you think we'll get to name our own white horses? :saint:

Merton
Jun 5th 2008, 03:06 AM
Oh, what a cop-out.:D We learn from the historical records that have been transmitted down throughout history from Yeshua.

And just what is it of His Instructions that YOU (as my Judge) claim I am disregarding? Huh?

I reacall that the Pharisees said the same thing to Jesus when He was only pointing out what God said. You really have to be more careful, and if you are older then you should be a good example to others.



Isa 1:21 Oh how the faithful city has become a harlot! She was full of justice; righteousness lodged in it. But now, murderers!
Isa 1:22 Your silver has become dross; your wine is diluted with water.
Isa 1:23 Your princes are rebellious and companions of thieves. Everyone loves a bribe, and is pursuing rewards. They do not judge the orphan, nor does the cause of the widow come to them,
Isa 1:24 and says the Lord, Jehovah of Hosts, the mighty One of Israel, Alas! I will be eased of My foes, and avenge Myself of My enemies.
Isa 1:25 And I will return My hand on you, and refine your dross, as with lye, and turn aside all your alloy.
Isa 1:26 And I will return your judges as at the first; and your advisors, as at the beginning; then you shall be called the city of righteousness, a faithful city.
Isa 1:27 Zion shall be redeemed with justice, and her returning ones with righteousness.

Yes the new Jerusalem replaces the old Jerusalem as the ruling city over the nations in the millennium.


I make no mistake here - it is not new knowledge either or my "own" ideas. It is scripture. Lets see how all this is my "own" ideas - when did John Wesley live? June 29, 1703 to March 2, 1791. And no Merton, I was not born before 1703 A.D. - I am an old geezer, that not that old!

Let's look at John Wesley's exegesis on Revelation 21:2;
The new heaven, the new earth, and the new Jerusalem, are closely connected. This city is wholly new, belonging not to this world, not to the millennium, but to eternity. This appears from the series of the vision, the magnificence of the description, and the opposition of this city to the second death. Coming down = In the very act of descending.
So the so-called "ideas" are not mine The knowledge that there are two statures of Jerusalem beyond this age has been with us for ages, and prior to the Hippy era, was the standard teaching. TWO Descensions means TWO different (in some way or another) things. It is amazing that people that get into these new things and new age stuff that fail to see the simplicity of what is there.

That is the Heavenly Jerusalem, and of course there is only one NEW (KAINOS!) Jerusalem, which was an idiom for THE ETERNAL ABODE. You seemed to be persisted on combining the earthly with the Eternal. Why is that? Looks look at Wesley's exegesis on 21:10, of a different DESCENSION - don't know much about the Weslyans, but John here followed the standard:
Rev 21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit - The same expression as before, Rev_17:3. And showed me the holy city Jerusalem - The old city is now forgotten, so that this is no longer termed the new, but absolutely Jerusalem. O how did St. John long to enter in! but the time was not yet come. Ezekiel also describes "the holy city," and what pertains thereto, Eze. 40:1-48:35, but a city quite different from the old Jerusalem, as it was either before or after the Babylonish captivity. The descriptions of the prophet and of the apostle agree in many particulars; but in many more they differ. Ezekiel expressly describes the temple, and the worship of God therein, closely alluding to the Levitical service. But St. John saw no temple, and describes the city far more large, glorious, and heavenly than the prophet. Yet that which he describes is the same city; but as it subsisted soon after the destruction of the beast. This being observed, both the prophecies agree together and one may explain the other.
It was you that made the quotes - my position is with the Bible I am acquainted with the Hebrew and Greek, so I am not "relying" upon "others" as you are - I can confirm the statements of others - since all we have left is historical data, that is all we have to "rely on others" for our faith to learn besides faith itself. You can get this by using a Bible.

No, apparently now, but it is a new position.Why rely on John Wesley.

It was quite common by the churches, apparently, to regard the Jerusalem of the millennium as being the restoration of the old Jerusalem alone, and regard the Heavenly Jerusalem as the eternal abode coming down after the millennium.

However it is the Heavenly Jerusalem described in Rev.21 which comes down as a Bride to rule over the mortal nations, which is the support and influence over the Jerusalem of stone where children will play in its streets. Read all Zech.

There is no further coming down of an eternal abode for the saints after the last judgment. You have relied on your misapplication of the word "new".



It takes time to progress and grow. I just happen to have decades of progression and grow, so by no means, do I look "down" on you; I am a servant of the Servant for the servants of the same Servant. But when the scriptures are pointed out to you, and you resort to something "new" to fudge them, then how shall you progress in such a manner as that? Only time will tell, but eventually, I think you will be just fine and do well.;)

Gotta go mow.

Blessings.You have already called me a fibber in defence of your position, and boasted of your experience, study and age, to sway me that you are correct, and quoted from men rather than from the bible except for a couple of words, so it is best not to do those things and then wink and say "blessings" when you provide no supporting scripture and accuse me of introducing something new to fudge them.

.Merton.

wpm
Jun 5th 2008, 04:58 AM
Hi, WPM! I would think that if these people had become Christians during the age of grace, they would be reigning with Christ in their resurrected, perfect, eternal bodies, never to need another sacrifice because they had made their decision for the Lord in the time before He returned. But if they were part of the remnant who had not been saved by Christ's blood, they would need to have the traditional sacrifices done on their behalf as well. Leviticus 8 speaks of the sacrifices Moses made to the Lord on behalf of Aaron and his sons, with verse 30 saying, "In this way, he made Aaron and his sons and their clothing holy."

My next thoughts don't actually relate to a question that you asked me, but a question I've heard others ask. I've heard people say that, no matter how many plans for one are made, there won't be a temple built in Israel either before or during the 7-year period of the Tribulation era because it would be an affront to Jesus who gave us the perfect sacrifice. But from my understanding most of the Jewish people do not yet believe that Jesus is their Messiah and they don't understand that His sacrifice is their salvation. They just know that Jehovah commanded the Old Testament sacrifices, and they remember His covenants. I believe that they will indeed build a temple, which will be violated by the antiChrist when he breaks his treaty with Israel, but I don't believe that in their hearts they will be constructing it to assault Jesus, but rather to seek their God that they once knew in the only way they know how--by what He told them in the past. They don't understand Jesus' sacrifice yet. But, eventually, they will. Zechariah 12:10-14 says, "Then I will pour out a spirit of grace and prayer on the family of David and on all the people of Jerusalem. They will look on Me whom they have pierced and mourn for Him as for an only son. They will grieve bitterly for Him as for a firstborn son who has died. The sorrow and mourning in Jerusalem on that day will be like the grievous mourning of Hadad-rimmon in the valley of Megiddo. All Israel will weep in profound sorrow, each family by itself, with the husbands and wives in separate groups. The family of David will mourn, along with the family of Nathan, the family of Levi, and the family of Shimei. Each of the surviving families from Judah will mourn separately, husbands and wives apart."

I want to thank you for your time, the honesty of your posts and the effort you have expended in replying to my many queries. You have certainly assisted my enquiry. I also want to thank you for the manner in which you have engaged.

Saying all this, I must say that the more you have went into this Premil expectation the more troubled I have become. Throughout your posts you argue there are more offerings for sin. However, Hebrews 10:18 censures this desire, explicitly saying: “there is no more offering for sin.” Nothing could be clearer. You say, there remains more sacrifices for sins,Hebrews 10:26 says, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.”

I feel you are building your premise on arbitrary interpretations of select Old Testament passages, most of which could be placed in an OT context or intra-Advent fulfilment. I don't see any warrant to resurrect sacrifices that the New Testament plainly declares are old, unsatisfactory and abolished. These sacrifices only served as a shadow until the reality come. The final sacrifice for sin has been made. So, why remotely introduce others?

Hebrews 7:27 says of Christ and His final atonement, “Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself."

The sinner's covering today is Christ. You say 'Christ and ...' I have to strongly object. This Premillennial hope totally undoes the exclusive efficacy and sole propitiatiatory or substitutionary qualities of the blood of Jesus. I'm sorry but this totally undermines the cross-work in my opinion. 1 Corinthians 1:30-31 declares, "of him (God) are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."

He is everything. It is not "Jesus + ... " but Jesus alone who is man's final offering, sacrifice and hope of escaping the wrath of God. You argue that there is a bunch of mortal Christ-rejecters that inhabit the new earth that are rendered clean by these abolished old covenant sacrifices, I find this highly objectionable. Revelation 19:7-8 show the only clean people on the new earth: "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

If there is anyone in your paradigm that rejects Christ they are not clean but vile and guilty and of their father the devil. Their trust in foolish impotent animal sacrifices is the utmost folly and deeply offensive to God who proved only one satisfactory sacrifice - His Son.

You reason of these millennial goats: “they will have need of being made clean so that they may come to take part in worship during this time.” Then instead of offering Christ as their hope, you present the old abolished Judaic system that Christ rendered obsolete through the cross as their hope of cleansing. You claim: “For the people of the world who are the remnant to come to God's holy place to worship, they would need some form of covering for their sin, as they would not be considered clean to come into God's holy presence.”

How can animal sacrifices cover their sin when the sin-coverer is sitting in their midst??? This to me is fanciful. It will not happen. You can't find this anywhere in the New Testament. Not in Revelation 20 or anywhere else. It is imported where it doesn’t belong.

How is a man cleaned or covered for sin now and for eternity? Hebrews 10:12 says,"this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.” This is an eternal transaction. It is an everlasting arrangement. There is no future day that God will allow the overiding of the cross-work. Never - He can't. It was the only ever offering that He could trult accept.

1 John 1:7-9 says, “the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” This is the only way to be clean. There is no other way. No plan B, no alternative innovation of man. Jesus is man's only covering for sin now and for eternity. It was God's final sacrifice for sin.

Hebrews 9:28 explains that "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.”

Hebrews 10:10 says, “we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Hebrews 10:14 says, “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”

Romans 6:10 says, "he died unto sin once.”

From Gods side the word atonement means to satisfy or compensate, therefore Christ’s vicarious atonement satisfied all the just demands of a thrice-holy God.

From mans point of view the word atonement means to reconcile, or to cause to be at one, therefore Christ’s vicarious atonement reconciled the elect to God.

1 Peter 3:18 says, "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust"

Hebrews 9:12 explains, “by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.”

As Jesus was dying, He cried: “It is finished.” At Calvary, Jesus finished transgression by becoming sin for us. The penalty for sin was fully and finally paid. No future sacrifice can ever be presented for sin; it was completely and perfectly finished at Calvary. God was completely satisfied with this spotless once all-sufficient sacrifice of His own dear Son and thus immediately and eternally rent the veil of the temple in twain. Calvary therefore finished the imperfect sacrifices. It denoted the end of old covenant offerings. It denoted the one single acceptable sacrifice for sin had been offered. Mark 15:37 records, “Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost. And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.”

Paul

Firstfruits
Jun 5th 2008, 09:27 AM
That is not the method that Jesus advised us to use--

Joh 16:13 But when that One comes, the Spirit of Truth, He will guide you into all Truth, for He will not speak from Himself, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will announce the coming things to you.

A the complete absence of any mention in the scriptures of the OT that Jerusalem comes down twice

John the apostle did NOT write the book of Revelation by using this kind of imformation that you resort to.

John wrote what he was told to write, directly from Gods mouth.

Your reliance on explanations from the words of other than those expressed by the Author and inspired by Him to you, is the reason for all of the different understandings abounding today.

Such leanings on the words of other men is forbidden by God Himself,

Did you realise that John himself did not understand all that he wrote, so that he was not relying on your sources at all and that is obvious because your view disagrees with many of the scriptures and you stumble over one greek word because you do not see its application from the OT scriptures which have given to you.


Merton.

Hi Merton,

Thanks for this post, I could not understand from what God said about the new Jerusalem and when John saw it coming down from heaven from God, how it became two.

Is 65:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=65&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
Is 65:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=65&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.

Is 65:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=65&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Is 66:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=66&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.

Rev 21:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Rev 21:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

According to what is written I can only see one new Jerusalem that comes from heaven from God.

Firstfruits

wombat
Jun 5th 2008, 01:37 PM
I feel you are building your premise on arbitrary interpretations of select Old Testament passages, most of which could be placed in an OT context or intra-Advent fulfilment. I don't see any warrant to resurrect sacrifices that the New Testament plainly declares are old, unsatisfactory and abolished.
Hi, WPM! For now shall we agree that we disagree? When it comes time for the Millennium, if you are correct, I will feed and tend your white horse for a day. If I am correct, you can feed and tend mine. Sound like a deal? :saint:

Firstfruits
Jun 5th 2008, 02:13 PM
Hi, WPM! The sacrifices are performed by the Levitical priests in the Jerusalem that will be re-established on earth after Armageddon, and they are for the spiritually unsaved survivors of Armageddon who live in the Millennial period. I do not believe that Christians need this form of sacrifice--Jesus is our one atonement for sin for those who believe in Him.

Hi Wombat,

After Armageddon, what happens to the beast and the false prophet and the people that followed them, if it is when Jesus returns? If not when he returns, then what is the battle of that great day of God Almighty?

Firstfruits

jewel4Christ
Jun 5th 2008, 02:27 PM
Hi Merton,

Thanks for this post, I could not understand from what God said about the new Jerusalem and when John saw it coming down from heaven from God, how it became two.

Is 65:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=65&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
Is 65:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=65&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.

Is 65:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=65&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Is 66:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=66&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.

Rev 21:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Rev 21:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

According to what is written I can only see one new Jerusalem that comes from heaven from God.

Firstfruits


Amen, it is very heart wrenching to me to see my brethren, try to reinstitue what Jesus has already tore down. Returning to the shadows, or trying to reinstitute them is the apostacy.


It is what causes men to "deny the blood that bought them", both jew and greek.

The word of God is clear, that truth only goes from glory to glory, and faith to faith...and, never will it go backwards.

:cry:it makes me cry to think how far into apostacy the church really is.


peaceandlove,

janet

Firstfruits
Jun 5th 2008, 02:32 PM
Amen, it is very heart wrenching to me to see my brethren, try to reinstitue what Jesus has already tore down. Returning to the shadows, or trying to reinstitute them is the apostacy.


It is what causes men to "deny the blood that bought them", both jew and greek.

The word of God is clear, that truth only goes from glory to glory, and faith to faith...and, never will it go backwards.

:cry:it makes me cry to think how far into apostacy the church really is.


peaceandlove,

janet

Thanks Janet,

God bless you!!!

FF

wombat
Jun 5th 2008, 02:43 PM
After Armageddon, what happens to the beast and the false prophet and the people that followed them, if it is when Jesus returns? If not when he returns, then what is the battle of that great day of God Almighty?
Hi, Firstfruits! Revelation 19:19-21 tells us, "Then I saw the beast gathering the kings of the earth and their armies in order to fight against the One sitting on the horse and His army. And the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who did mighty miracles on behalf of the beast--miracles that deceived all who had acceped the mark of the beast and who worshiped his statue. Both the beast and his false prophet were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. Their entire army was killed by the sharp sword that came out of the mouth of the one riding the white horse." This is speaking about the end of the battle of Armageddon, which happens when Jesus returns with His saints to earth.

At the same time the beast and false prophet are defeated, Revelation 20:1-6 speaks of Satan being bound in chains and thrown into the bottomless pit for 1000 years (the duration of the Millennial Kingdom) so he could not deceive the nations during that time. During the 1000 years, the Saints will reign with Christ.

Now, just to make sure we're talking about the same thing when we speak of Jesus' "return", I should ask if you meant the time when Jesus calls His believers up to be with Him (popularly known as the "Rapture of the Church") or if you mean His final return to earth, when He sets up His Millennial Kingdom? If you are speaking about the Rapture return, personally I believe that the Rapture will have already occurred before Armageddon happened. While I'm not yet sure whether I'm a pre-tribber or a mid-tribber, so to speak, I'm fairly confident that I'm not a post-tribber.

Firstfruits
Jun 5th 2008, 03:13 PM
Hi, Firstfruits! Revelation 19:19-21 tells us, "Then I saw the beast gathering the kings of the earth and their armies in order to fight against the One sitting on the horse and His army. And the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who did mighty miracles on behalf of the beast--miracles that deceived all who had acceped the mark of the beast and who worshiped his statue. Both the beast and his false prophet were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. Their entire army was killed by the sharp sword that came out of the mouth of the one riding the white horse." This is speaking about the end of the battle of Armageddon, which happens when Jesus returns with His saints to earth.

At the same time the beast and false prophet are defeated, Revelation 20:1-6 speaks of Satan being bound in chains and thrown into the bottomless pit for 1000 years (the duration of the Millennial Kingdom) so he could not deceive the nations during that time. During the 1000 years, the Saints will reign with Christ.

Now, just to make sure we're talking about the same thing when we speak of Jesus' "return", I should ask if you meant the time when Jesus calls His believers up to be with Him (popularly known as the "Rapture of the Church") or if you mean His final return to earth, when He sets up His Millennial Kingdom? If you are speaking about the Rapture return, personally I believe that the Rapture will have already occurred before Armageddon happened. While I'm not yet sure whether I'm a pre-tribber or a mid-tribber, so to speak, I'm fairly confident that I'm not a post-tribber.

This is in regards to when Jesus returns at Armageddon and what you said in the following; The sacrifices are performed by the Levitical priests in the Jerusalem that will be re-established on earth after Armageddon, and they are for the spiritually unsaved survivors of Armageddon who live in the Millennial period.

Are you saying that that will take place in the new Jerusalem that comes down from heaven from God?

2 Pet 3:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=61&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Is 65:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=65&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
Is 65:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=65&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.

Why will there be unsaved in the New Jerusalem?

Firstfruits

Cyberseeker
Jun 5th 2008, 03:20 PM
Hi, WPM! For now shall we agree that we disagree? When it comes time for the Millennium, if you are correct, I will feed and tend your white horse for a day. If I am correct, you can feed and tend mine. Sound like a deal? :saint:

You gonna have a skinny horse Wombie. ;)

wombat
Jun 5th 2008, 08:58 PM
Are you saying that that will take place in the new Jerusalem that comes down from heaven from God? Why will there be unsaved in the New Jerusalem?
Hi again, Firstfruits! I'm glad you asked this question to clarify. Actually, no, I'm not referring to the New Jerusalem that is described in Revelation 21. I believe this New Jerusalem is only for the righteous to live in, as verse 27 says, "Nothing evil will be allowed to enter--no one who practices shameful idolatry and dishonesty--but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life." This New Jerusalem is the eternal home of God's righteous people, and there will be no temple there because "the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple" (verse 22).

The New Jerusalem comes down out of heaven after the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15), when God creates the new heaven and new earth (verses 1-2). Only the righteous will be in it, because all of the ungodly have just been thrown into the lake of fire for eternity. Sin and death are finished.

The New Jerusalem is far different than the earthly Jerusalem that I have been referring to that will be rebuilt after Armageddon. The New Jerusalem is a cube that is 1400 miles on all sides! Earthly Jerusalem is described by Zechariah (chapter 14), who says of the Millennial period, "On that day life-giving waters will flow out from Jerusalem, half toward the Dead Sea and half toward the Mediterranean, flowing continuously both in summer and in winter. And the Lord will be king over all the earth. on that day there will be one Lord--His name alone will be worshiped. All the land from Geba, north of Judah, to Rimmon, south of Jerusalem, will become one vast plain. But Jerusalem will be raised up in its original place and will be inhabited all the way from the Benjamin Gate ovr to the site of the old gate, then to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the king's winepresses. And Jerusalem will be filled, safe at last, never again to be cursed and destroyed."

Note in verses 12-15 speak of a terrible plague that will be sent by God upon the nations that attack Jerusalem during Armageddon, but verse 16 shows that there are survivors of this plague who will go to Jerusalem each year to worship the Lord and celebrate the Festival of Shelters during that Millennial period. These people would not be going into the New Jerusalem (the 1400-mile cube) because only God's righteous people can enter that place.

The actual boundaries of earthly Israel during the Millennial period are described in Ezekiel 45, 47, 48. Ezekiel 48:35 says the distance around the earthly city of Jerusalem is six miles, which is far different than the 1400-miles of the New Jerusalem. Ezekiel also provides the temple measurements for earthly Jerusalem in chapters 40, 41, 42, 43, and describes the priests and sacrifices in chapters 44, 45, 46.

What is really exciting is chapter 47, which speaks of the river Zechariah also noted that will flow from the earthly Jerusalem's temple. Along this river will grow trees that will bear wonderful fruit, and the leaves will be used for healing the nations! Fish will even be able to fill the Dead Sea, because the river brings life wherever it flows.

How exciting! I can't wait to see it!

Merton
Jun 6th 2008, 12:46 AM
Hi Merton,

Thanks for this post, I could not understand from what God said about the new Jerusalem and when John saw it coming down from heaven from God, how it became two.

Is 65:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=65&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
Is 65:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=65&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.

Is 65:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=65&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Is 66:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=66&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.

Rev 21:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Rev 21:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

According to what is written I can only see one new Jerusalem that comes from heaven from God.

Firstfruits



Yes if we can not verify the facts through the OT scriptures then it is not correct.

The Hebrew Scriptures are even less able to be tampered with than the NT verses and any truths are not foundered on one verse or word alone.

The understanding of the whole of scripture is not altered by a misunderstanding of one or two points.




Merton.

Merton
Jun 6th 2008, 02:29 AM
The actual boundaries of earthly Israel during the Millennial period are described in Ezekiel 45, 47, 48. Ezekiel 48:35 says the distance around the earthly city of Jerusalem is six miles, which is far different than the 1400-miles of the New Jerusalem. Ezekiel also provides the temple measurements for earthly Jerusalem in chapters 40, 41, 42, 43, and describes the priests and sacrifices in chapters 44, 45, 46.

What is really exciting is chapter 47, which speaks of the river Zechariah also noted that will flow from the earthly Jerusalem's temple. Along this river will grow trees that will bear wonderful fruit, and the leaves will be used for healing the nations! Fish will even be able to fill the Dead Sea, because the river brings life wherever it flows.

How exciting! I can't wait to see it!


The measurements and proceedings of the Temple in Ezekiel are given in OT terms, but they were shadows and types of New covenant realities.

The OT teachers were not short of understanding what measurements meant except when the nation became darkened though sin.

Look at the manner in which Christ explained the truths hidden in the OT types. If Christ's explanations of them are not valid then He only has sheep of the animal kind, and Nicodemus was right about what Christ spoke, besides that you must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have His life in you.

The NT gives it that the river of life is not a physical river and that it flows from the Throne of God from the Heavenly Jerusalem and not from any one of this earth. Even in the millennium it is the same then as it is now.

This then gives the way to understand the temple in Ezekiel.--

Rev 21:17 And he measured its wall, a hundred and forty four cubits, a measure of a man, which is of an angel.

Eph 4:13 until we all may come to the unity of the faith and of the full knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,

The literal understanding of Rev.ch 11:1-2 is not consistent with Christ's teaching that the temple of stone was a representation of spiritual truths, in that it spoke of a living temple both as He being the temple of God which is His body and of also those who are in Him.


Eze 42:14 When the priests enter therein, then shall they not go out of the holy place into the utter court, but there they shall lay their garments wherein they minister; for they are holy; and shall put on other garments, and shall approach to thosethings which are for the people.

Moses, David, Jesus, the 120, did just that. Many others have also throughout history but I mention the ones easily shown by scripture.

Read Hebrews ch 10. These verses about entering the Holy Place are to believers of Jesus and NOT something that believers learn to be their doctrinal position. Either one has entered there or one has not, for it is not usual to continually dwell there, but to go in and out, unless one has already become as David wanted to come to, which he partly did come to in his mortal life, but he went through hell, so to speak, to get there--(read the whole psalm)

Psa 23:6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.


Merton

Firstfruits
Jun 6th 2008, 09:07 AM
Hi again, Firstfruits! I'm glad you asked this question to clarify. Actually, no, I'm not referring to the New Jerusalem that is described in Revelation 21. I believe this New Jerusalem is only for the righteous to live in, as verse 27 says, "Nothing evil will be allowed to enter--no one who practices shameful idolatry and dishonesty--but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life." This New Jerusalem is the eternal home of God's righteous people, and there will be no temple there because "the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple" (verse 22).

The New Jerusalem comes down out of heaven after the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15), when God creates the new heaven and new earth (verses 1-2). Only the righteous will be in it, because all of the ungodly have just been thrown into the lake of fire for eternity. Sin and death are finished.

The New Jerusalem is far different than the earthly Jerusalem that I have been referring to that will be rebuilt after Armageddon. The New Jerusalem is a cube that is 1400 miles on all sides! Earthly Jerusalem is described by Zechariah (chapter 14), who says of the Millennial period, "On that day life-giving waters will flow out from Jerusalem, half toward the Dead Sea and half toward the Mediterranean, flowing continuously both in summer and in winter. And the Lord will be king over all the earth. on that day there will be one Lord--His name alone will be worshiped. All the land from Geba, north of Judah, to Rimmon, south of Jerusalem, will become one vast plain. But Jerusalem will be raised up in its original place and will be inhabited all the way from the Benjamin Gate ovr to the site of the old gate, then to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the king's winepresses. And Jerusalem will be filled, safe at last, never again to be cursed and destroyed."

Note in verses 12-15 speak of a terrible plague that will be sent by God upon the nations that attack Jerusalem during Armageddon, but verse 16 shows that there are survivors of this plague who will go to Jerusalem each year to worship the Lord and celebrate the Festival of Shelters during that Millennial period. These people would not be going into the New Jerusalem (the 1400-mile cube) because only God's righteous people can enter that place.

The actual boundaries of earthly Israel during the Millennial period are described in Ezekiel 45, 47, 48. Ezekiel 48:35 says the distance around the earthly city of Jerusalem is six miles, which is far different than the 1400-miles of the New Jerusalem. Ezekiel also provides the temple measurements for earthly Jerusalem in chapters 40, 41, 42, 43, and describes the priests and sacrifices in chapters 44, 45, 46.

What is really exciting is chapter 47, which speaks of the river Zechariah also noted that will flow from the earthly Jerusalem's temple. Along this river will grow trees that will bear wonderful fruit, and the leaves will be used for healing the nations! Fish will even be able to fill the Dead Sea, because the river brings life wherever it flows.

How exciting! I can't wait to see it!

If as it is written that the beast and the false prophet are cast into the lake of fire, and those that followed them are killed with the sword, then who will be here to live in the Jerusalem you are refering to, that is to be rebuilt after Armageddon?

Rev 19:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: And all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

Are the saints not gone to be forever with Christ in the New Jerusalem?

Where do this group come from?

The sacrifices are performed by the Levitical priests in the Jerusalem that will be re-established on earth after Armageddon, and they are for the spiritually unsaved survivors of Armageddon who live in the Millennial period. I do not believe that Christians need this form of sacrifice--Jesus is our one atonement for sin for those who believe in Him.

If the remnant are slain, how can there be survivors?

Raybob
Jun 6th 2008, 10:19 AM
The New Jerusalem is far different than the earthly Jerusalem that I have been referring to that will be rebuilt after Armageddon. The New Jerusalem is a cube that is 1400 miles on all sides!

WOW! This present earth doesn't have any atmosphere at all above about 10 miles or so. I guess they must have to use pressurized space suits to build something that tall. The top 1390 miles of that building will be totally unusable, being above the ozone layer!:rofl:


Earthly Jerusalem is described by Zechariah (chapter 14), who says of the Millennial period, "On that day life-giving waters will flow out from Jerusalem, half toward the Dead Sea and half toward the Mediterranean, flowing continuously both in summer and in winter. And the Lord will be king over all the earth.

That passage makes so much more sense if you see it as the first coming with the living water flowing from the Lord symbolically speaking rather than literal H2O coming from a literal city. The Lord IS king over all the earth for HIS people now (and forever), not just for a limited time period of 1000 years.

Raybob

the rookie
Jun 6th 2008, 10:44 AM
WOW! This present earth doesn't have any atmosphere at all above about 10 miles or so. I guess they must have to use pressurized space suits to build something that tall. The top 1390 miles of that building will be totally unusable, being above the ozone layer!:rofl:



That passage makes so much more sense if you see it as the first coming with the living water flowing from the Lord symbolically speaking rather than literal H2O coming from a literal city. The Lord IS king over all the earth for HIS people now (and forever), not just for a limited time period of 1000 years.

Raybob

Why would the God who parts the heavens like a curtain, parted the Red Sea with the breath of His nostrils, stopped the sun in the sky for Joshua, before deciding to take His eternal, infinite vastness and become fully man while continuing to walk as fully God struggle with current atmospheric limitations that, as the creator of those limitations, He would be fully aware of?

Are you saying that the precise measurements given to John the Apostle in Rev. 21 are patently ridiculous because of current realities and thus must be dismissed? Are you suggesting that anyone who believes the measurements, from that passage, of the coming heavenly city that will join itself to the earth is foolish to do so? I'm not sure how to interpret your riotous laughter and mockery of the earlier poster on the subject.

Maybe you could develop your "spacesuit" comment a bit more? It seems to me that when the "heavens" and the earth pass away the passage could very well be talking about the current atmospheric limitations that have currently discouraged you from imagining the city as it is described in the passage - possibly more than the "heavenly realm" passing away, which some folks interpret that phrase. He is going to make all things new, after all. One could imagine that "newness" including the atmosphere.

Or does the sheer impossibility of literal H2O flowing from a literal city therefore negate the possibility of a city that exceeds the boundaries of our current atmospheric limitations? I just want to get your hermeneutic straight. It seems, thus far, to be summarized by, "that's impossible." As I've noted elsewhere, that debate point doesn't quite sit well for some reason.

It probably has to do with the fact that resurrected, glorified bodies don't have much use for spacesuits. I'm guessing angels do just fine without them as well.

As you can tell, I'm also not that big a fan of reductio ad absurdum as a debate tactic. It has a spot right next to "that's impossible" in the logical fallacy hall of fame somewhere.

Firstfruits
Jun 6th 2008, 11:08 AM
Why would the God who parts the heavens like a curtain, parted the Red Sea with the breath of His nostrils, stopped the sun in the sky for Joshua, before deciding to take His eternal, infinite vastness and become fully man while continuing to walk as fully God struggle with current atmospheric limitations that, as the creator of those limitations, He would be fully aware of?

Are you saying that the precise measurements given to John the Apostle in Rev. 21 are patently ridiculous because of current realities and thus must be dismissed? Are you suggesting that anyone who believes the measurements, from that passage, of the coming heavenly city that will join itself to the earth is foolish to do so? I'm not sure how to interpret your riotous laughter and mockery of the earlier poster on the subject.

Maybe you could develop your "spacesuit" comment a bit more? It seems to me that when the "heavens" and the earth pass away the passage could very well be talking about the current atmospheric limitations that have currently discouraged you from imagining the city as it is described in the passage - possibly more than the "heavenly realm" passing away, which some folks interpret that phrase. He is going to make all things new, after all. One could imagine that "newness" including the atmosphere.

Or does the sheer impossibility of literal H2O flowing from a literal city therefore negate the possibility of a city that exceeds the boundaries of our current atmospheric limitations? I just want to get your hermeneutic straight. It seems, thus far, to be summarized by, "that's impossible." As I've noted elsewhere, that debate point doesn't quite sit well for some reason.

It probably has to do with the fact that resurrected, glorified bodies don't have much use for spacesuits. I'm guessing angels do just fine without them as well.

As you can tell, I'm also not that big a fan of reductio ad absurdum as a debate tactic. It has a spot right next to "that's impossible" in the logical fallacy hall of fame somewhere.

What is the water of life in these scriptures, is it H20?

Rev 21:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

Rev 22:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=22&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

Rev 22:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=22&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Jn 4:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Is H20 living water, and can it give everlasting life?

the rookie
Jun 6th 2008, 11:12 AM
What is the water of life in this scripture, is it H20?

Rev 21:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

Rev 22:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=22&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

Rev 22:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=22&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Jn 4:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Is H20 living water, and can it give everlasting life?

I'm not sure you or I grasp what exactly you are rebutting here. I happen to agree with you. I was simply addressing comments made by the other poster, who used the term "literal H2O". I think you got hung up on a minor and missed the major, which was the broader point I was looking to make about an omipotent God and the possibilities contained therein.

Firstfruits
Jun 6th 2008, 11:59 AM
I'm not sure you or I grasp what exactly you are rebutting here. I happen to agree with you. I was simply addressing comments made by the other poster, who used the term "literal H2O". I think you got hung up on a minor and missed the major, which was the broader point I was looking to make about an omipotent God and the possibilities contained therein.

Hi TR,

Thanks for the clarification. All understood.

God bless!!!

Firstfruits

wombat
Jun 6th 2008, 01:29 PM
You gonna have a skinny horse Wombie. ;)
By the way, when I said "for a day", I mean a literal 24-hour day, not a 1000-year day!:lol:

wombat
Jun 6th 2008, 01:32 PM
If as it is written that the beast and the false prophet are cast into the lake of fire, and those that followed them are killed with the sword, then who will be here to live in the Jerusalem you are refering to, that is to be rebuilt after Armageddon?Rev 19:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: And all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
Hi, Firstfruits! I tried to answer these questions for someone else earlier in the thread. Take a peak back at some of my posts and my answers should be in there. Thanks!

Firstfruits
Jun 6th 2008, 01:44 PM
Hi, Firstfruits! I tried to answer these questions for someone else earlier in the thread. Take a peak back at some of my posts and my answers should be in there. Thanks!

As there are 10 pages do you remember what number it is?

Thanks

Firstfruits

wombat
Jun 6th 2008, 01:57 PM
What is the water of life in these scriptures, is it H20? Is H20 living water, and can it give everlasting life?
Hi again, Firstfruits! My thought on this is that, yes, it could quite literally be perfect, life-giving, liquid water, as well as that perfect, life-giving flow of the Holy Spirit in us who believe in Jesus. Why not both?

There is good reason to believe this water is literal by the descriptions in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, just as the Tree of Life is also a literal tree described in both the Old and New Testaments. Ezekiel describes wading through the earthly river that will flow from the Temple (Ezekiel 47:1-5). He also describes how far it stretches, through desert, (verse 8) and says "The waters of this stream will heal the salty waters of the Dead Sea and make them fresh and pure. Everything that touches the water of this river will live. Fish will abound in the Dead Sea, for its waters will be healed. Wherever this water flows, everything will live. Fishermen will stand along the shores of the Dead Sea, fishing all the way from En-gedi to En-eglaim. The shores will be covered with nets drying in the sun. Fish of every kind will fill the Dead Sea, just as they fill the Mediterranean!"

Ezekiel also says that this river has its limits. "But the marshes and swamps will not be purified; they will be sources of salt."

In the heavenly New Jerusalem, the river of life is described as actually coursing down the center of the main street (Revelation 22:1-2)! It is pure water, crystal clear, not this sinful world's curse-tainted H2O that we currently drink, but rather perfect water, as water was before the curse brought on by Adam's sin. And again, Revelation 22:2 also describes the tree of life being there, growing beside the river of life, bearing a fresh crop of fruit each month, its leaves used for medicine to heal the nations.

I see no reason to believe that this couldn't be literal water. When you think about it, one of the things that man most needs in order to survive is water.

Raybob
Jun 6th 2008, 02:06 PM
Why would the God who parts the heavens like a curtain, parted the Red Sea with the breath of His nostrils, stopped the sun in the sky for Joshua, before deciding to take His eternal, infinite vastness and become fully man while continuing to walk as fully God struggle with current atmospheric limitations that, as the creator of those limitations, He would be fully aware of?

Are you saying that the precise measurements given to John the Apostle in Rev. 21 are patently ridiculous because of current realities and thus must be dismissed?

God wouldn't struggle at all but for this to be a physical thing to happen on this physical earth would be outrageous literal interpretation of a passage that is in every way most symbolic of the whole picture. If ponder that passage asking God to show you what it means, totally disregarding EVERYTHING you've thought before and what 99% of scholars believe, then it's easy to see how this could very well be a symbolic picture of something like the "complete" church being perfect in every way, perfect measure in every direction. The jewels and precious stones MANY places in scripture represent the word of God. Don't cast your pearls before swine wasn't speaking of physical riches but spiritual riches.

Mal 3:3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.

Mat 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

Col 2:2-3 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; (3) In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

1Pe 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

1Pe 2:3-6 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. (4) To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, (5) Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (6) Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

Let the bible interpret the bible instead of the teachings and traditions of men and it becomes alive with treasures you never dreamed of!

Raybob

wombat
Jun 6th 2008, 02:09 PM
As there are 10 pages do you remember what number it is?
Hi again! Check out the information in #83, 84, and 99. I hope that helps clarify a bit.

Firstfruits
Jun 6th 2008, 02:49 PM
Hi again! Check out the information in #83, 84, and 99. I hope that helps clarify a bit.

Thank you,

I shall check them out.

Firstfruits
Jun 6th 2008, 02:59 PM
Hi again! Check out the information in #83, 84, and 99. I hope that helps clarify a bit.

Since all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him; Rev 13:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
and all that worship him shall be killed, then there can be no survivors, can there?

Firstfruits

wombat
Jun 6th 2008, 03:15 PM
Since all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him; Rev 13:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. and all that worship him shall be killed, then there can be no survivors, can there?
Hi, Firstfruits! All I can say in response to this is that after the Millennial reign is over, Satan is let loose once again to deceive the nations. Now if these nations were made up of Christians, then Satan would not be able to get anywhere with this attempt, because the redeemed will be eternally with Christ. They have already made their choice to serve the Lord and will never again fall into sin. But Revelation 20:7-8 shows that Satan does manage to deceive the nations and he gathers them for one last battle against God and His holy people and Jerusalem (the beloved city).

Clifton
Jun 6th 2008, 04:20 PM
That is not the method that Jesus advised us to use—

Again, you have skewed what I said. Please look again at the snippet (please note the bolded text):
“…The Seer, John, modeled some of his work on some of the Pseudepigrapha (and other materials) to convey what he saw and to make his statements (or just make quotes from those material), and one of the main ones out of the Pseudepigrapha he used was correlated to 1 Enoch as we have it today…”
Joh 16:13 But when that One comes, the Spirit of Truth, He will guide you into all Truth, for He will not speak from Himself, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will announce the coming things to you. Disjointing snippets from context changes the contexts. By your disjointed quote here, we should not pay attention to the Bible at all, including the quote itself. Now that is so quite puzzling and illogical.


A the complete absence of any mention in the scriptures of the OT that Jerusalem comes down twice. 1) You skew what the scriptures point out and derail from what I stated. One Jerusalem of one stature and nature does not descend twice. I have iterated that more than once. One is of “one nature and stature”, which is temporal, and the other, which descends after the Millennium is Eternal (The one and the last referred to in Revelation 3:12, 21:2). And I know of no such thing as “animal sacrifices” during the Millennium, and do not see that when considering the statements in Isaiah Chapters 11 & 65.

2) You quoted John 16:13 – so as you read the “Messianic Scriptures” (NT), and hopefully contextually chapter to chapter and book to book, you find that these scriptures “clear up” and “enhance” things in the Tanak (OT). Yeshua cleared up a lot issues concerning the commandments, that there is more than just the letter of the law, there is the spirit of the law (e.g. looking upon a woman with lust is just the same as adultery, and so on, which is not in the OT), and defied changes to the Law that one or more houses of the Pharisees had changed (their human-only inventions).

3) I have often noted that people which quoted and said things like John 16:13, they depart from that themselves and resort to the teachings and inventions of man, which, does not translate back into the Hebrew and Greek hence where it came from, not even synonymously. Isn’t that intriguing?


John the apostle did NOT write the book of Revelation by using this kind of information that you resort to. That “I” resort to? I know that I do not have “secretarial Typing” skills, and thus, some of my English constructions are not well – I could get an award for that – but I assume that SOME others can decipher the errors, at least most of the time – I have been able to decipher the posts of others that make similar typing errors. Nonetheless, I checked what you quoted, and it should be obvious as to what I did state. Let me expound further:

According to The Book of Revelation and the documents it relates to and surrounds it, The Seer has interpreted past events under the form of a prophecy, which was not a new thing to do, but was the manner of apocalyptic writers" Such a procedure belongs to Jewish apocalyptic but not to Christian, until we advance well into the 2nd century. They modeled these prophecies on using literature and documents of their present times and past times to convey what they saw in their visions – especially since some visions would contain things that were not yet in existence at the time of the vision, or visions. Say like a Seer might do today: get a vision and uses the resources of these times and past times to best convey them into words, say like, model them on Hitler, The Pearl Harbor and Japan Bombings, Viet Nam, and whatever, and use some Jewish-Christian literature (including out of the Bible) to convey what the vision says is coming into the future.

Thus, let us note that some of those resources include some of the OT and NT, which “I” resort to. The Book of Revelation is not loaded with “new” words and phrases that did not already exist in previous literature (especially the scriptures). There is also DSS Revelation (though it is a “stream of text” within another work), which The Book of Revelation is loaded with. DSS Revelation has been placed around 200 – 69 B.C. - but probably not later than 69 B.C. – but that is just an “IMO”, because generally, the time given between the scrolls is over 100 years, so that is why my “IMO” places it no later than 69 B.C.;

As I stated in a post yesterday morning, bear in mind that The Book of Revelation was not always an “accepted book” in all canons, or by all regions and sections of saints, and to the best of my knowledge, has never been 100% universally accepted. But the problems with it were acknowledged in the early ages, by people like Victorinus of Pettau (whom sought a redaction of the book). In fact, if Martin Luther had his way, and had not reluctantly bowed to tradition, The "Book of Revelation" would not be in the "Protestant Bibles", as well as "Hebrews", "James", and "Jude", because he had an extra criteria for which books should be included in the Protestant Bible;

Apparently, there were some reasoning(s) for the lack of acceptance of the Book of Revelation between the various saints throughout the ages (if I recall correctly, The Apocalypse of Peter was preferred first, one time in history!) – I’m sure anyone can make a good guess as to why the Book of Revelation was not accepted by the council of the Laodiceans in the 2nd Century;

Bear in mind also that the Book(s) of Revelation you see now, was/where not always totally the same for all saints throughout history (take the variances between the "Andreas" and "Unicial 046" transmitted MSS) – even on the market of today, there are 3 Greek Archetypes (TR, CT, and MT), and on top of that, for other languages like English, are not only using one (or more) of those Archetypes, the English translator(s) can decide which “variants” and “alternate readings” to use, so basically speaking, there a many “versions” of the Book of Revelation in the English market and in the public.

So if you have issues that the book “reveals” two distinctions and two descensions, you can join the history of saints that did not, or do not, accept that book – it is your right, as well as it was and is theirs. You won’t be taking up a “new” stand anyway. Or, maybe you can just stick with DSS Revelation as others, since it has only one descension:
(cp. Rev. 21:2)‡ And I saw the Holy City of the brotherhood, coming down from God out of Heaven, prepared like a bride adorned for her husband.
John wrote what he was told to write, directly from Gods mouth. And as I said and history has shown, and as would be done today, knowledge of one’s current words, events, and documents would have to be used to convey dreams and visions, as best as could be accomplished.


Your reliance on explanations from the words of other than those expressed by the Author and inspired by Him to you, is the reason for all of the different understandings abounding today. It is contradictory to quote John 16:13 and then make such a statement. The Tanak (OT) has the QERE and KETHIV readings, and the Greek has variants and alternate readings, and saints have always had explanatory notes for thousands of years to aid them in understanding what the Authors wrote – especially when it is translated into another language. One has to know the meanings of those words in the original language it is coming from, just as if it were done in English, an English speaker would share with others what the English words, phrases, and idioms mean to those foreigners learning what the English literature means;

Thus, if someone outside of that English literature of another language wants to change the words of their translations of it, it will be just that: changing; which the one understanding English knows better.


Such leanings on the words of other men is forbidden by God Himself, Interesting - I go with the 1st and 2nd Century saints, and differentiate between that “of and for the Earth and the Eternal and utmost spiritual realms”, and here comes someone down the road in the second millennium A.D. (and maybe even somewhere in the first millennium A.D.) and compounds them together into one (re: human-only inventions) for things, and for my lack of acceptance of such human-only inventions, one who adheres to such inventions makes such a statement. Fascinating, in an odd way, since you have shown much to leaning on the words of other men (or women).

OTOH, since the Book of Revelation was not always accepted, it could be that earnest saints only “knew” of one nature and stature of Jerusalem beyond the starting point of “The Lord’s Day”. However, we are talking about those of us now and of the past that do accept, and have accepted the book.


Did you realise that John himself did not understand all that he wrote, so that he was not relying on your sources at all and that is obvious because your view disagrees with many of the scriptures and you stumble over one greek word because you do not see its application from the OT scriptures which have given to you. Sources in his time and times previous to his time, including the OT and NT, as I have pointed out. See above. And since your view disagrees with the simplicity of the scriptures, and the coherency of them, I think I see the problem and why the self-contradictions in your posts:

Like that for “realized millennialists”, your training manual has not equipped you with “how” to deal with the point-blank texts that “reveal” there are two distinctions and descensions, and you are on your own – it was “new revelations” for a reason, and as usual, that training manual has left you stumped on how to support a later invention (or as things appeared pre-NT) with different readings that have no textual support. Yea, I know how it goes – been there, done that, so I am not getting “personal” (as it may seem as such coming from a long-time writer of lucid and direct lyrics – I am enjoying myself immensely with glee), therefore I sympathize, and I feel eventually you will come to light that such training manuals can betray you;

I’m long known to shatter such "training manuals" as if there were nothing but of paper thin glass. Anyway, having been in your position before, well, that was just another reason why I went for the original languages, to learn the history and supporting texts… to discern the differences between the “theological training manuals” and “theological educational manuals” - sounds as “one”, but they are “two”. :D

Blessings.

Firstfruits
Jun 6th 2008, 05:28 PM
Hi, Firstfruits! All I can say in response to this is that after the Millennial reign is over, Satan is let loose once again to deceive the nations. Now if these nations were made up of Christians, then Satan would not be able to get anywhere with this attempt, because the redeemed will be eternally with Christ. They have already made their choice to serve the Lord and will never again fall into sin. But Revelation 20:7-8 shows that Satan does manage to deceive the nations and he gathers them for one last battle against God and His holy people and Jerusalem (the beloved city).

Again I ask, if the saints have gone to be with Jesus forever, and all that worship the beast are killed, then according to scripture where do those who Satan tempts come from?

Rev 20:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=20&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
Rev 20:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=20&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

Remember they are devoured by fire.

Firstfruits

threebigrocks
Jun 6th 2008, 06:31 PM
Again I ask, if the saints have gone to be with Jesus forever, and all that worship the beast are killed, then according to scripture where do those who Satan tempts come from?

Rev 20:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=20&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
Rev 20:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=20&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

Remember they are devoured by fire.

Firstfruits

This is not until after 1000 years and satan is loosed. Not all will be destroyed when Christ comes again - but all who do not believe and rise up to encircle the earthly kingdom will be destroyed with fire and receive their judgement.

wombat
Jun 6th 2008, 07:45 PM
Again I ask, if the saints have gone to be with Jesus forever, and all that worship the beast are killed, then according to scripture where do those who Satan tempts come from?
Hi, Firstfruits! I guess we'll have to wait and see on this. I really have no more answer left in me at this point other than what I've already commented on. I do know that when the Bible has points that seem to conflict with each other, such as this, it is not because the Bible is wrong in either of the two cases, but it is because we do not yet fully understand how it all meshes together. I will see if I can find some more information to help answer this question--Wombat doesn't know everything. I'll be the first to admit that!

wombat
Jun 6th 2008, 07:47 PM
This is not until after 1000 years and satan is loosed. Not all will be destroyed when Christ comes again - but all who do not believe and rise up to encircle the earthly kingdom will be destroyed with fire and receive their judgement.
Thanks, Threebigrocks! Good point.

John146
Jun 6th 2008, 07:53 PM
This is not until after 1000 years and satan is loosed. Not all will be destroyed when Christ comes again - but all who do not believe and rise up to encircle the earthly kingdom will be destroyed with fire and receive their judgement.

How do you conclude that not all (unbelievers) will be destroyed when Christ comes again? We are taught that He will destroy all unbelievers when He returns in the following passages:

26And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. - Luke 17:26-30

Jesus says clearly here that just as in the days of Noah when all unbelievers were killed by the flood, "Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed". He also says that just as it was in the days of Lot when all unbelievers in Sodom were killed by fire and brimstone, "Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed".

He doesn't leave the door open for any unbelievers escaping His wrath when He comes again. Just like Paul teaches here:

1But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
2For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
3For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. - 1 Thess 5:3

Paul is speaking here about the very same people that Jesus said would be caught unaware by His coming because they will be too busy going about their daily lives to have any idea that He is about to come and destroy them.

Then Paul says this:

7And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
10When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day. - 2 Thess 1:7-10

We see here that when Christ returns He will destroy all "that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ". Can you tell me which unbelievers do not fit into that description?

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. - 2 Peter 3:3-7

This passage, like Luke 17, compares Christ's coming to the days of the flood, which killed all unbelievers. Peter says here that in the same way all the ungodly will perish when Christ returns, only this time by fire rather than water. Then he goes on to say this:

10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. - 2 Peter 3:10-13

The coming of Christ not only brings the destruction of all unbelievers but even the burning up of the heavens and earth themselves. What mortal could survive that?

17And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
18That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
19And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
20And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
21And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh. - Rev 19:17-21

Notice that when Christ comes "the flesh of all men" will be consumed. When it says "both free and bond, both small and great" that indicates that it is all-inclusive and includes everyone (all unbelievers, that is). No unbelievers will survive the second coming of Christ. It will be too late for anyone that has not already repented and put their faith in Christ at that point. As Peter said, nevertheless, despite all that destruction, we believers look forward to the new heavens and new earth which will appear shortly following it.

the rookie
Jun 6th 2008, 08:02 PM
God wouldn't struggle at all but for this to be a physical thing to happen on this physical earth would be outrageous literal interpretation of a passage that is in every way most symbolic of the whole picture. If ponder that passage asking God to show you what it means, totally disregarding EVERYTHING you've thought before and what 99% of scholars believe, then it's easy to see how this could very well be a symbolic picture of something like the "complete" church being perfect in every way, perfect measure in every direction. The jewels and precious stones MANY places in scripture represent the word of God. Don't cast your pearls before swine wasn't speaking of physical riches but spiritual riches.

Mal 3:3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.

Mat 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

Col 2:2-3 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; (3) In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

1Pe 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

1Pe 2:3-6 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. (4) To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, (5) Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (6) Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

Let the bible interpret the bible instead of the teachings and traditions of men and it becomes alive with treasures you never dreamed of!

Raybob

This is a bit of a derail, so I'm not going to really break down how sloppy your exegesis of these verses is, but suffice it to say that there are plenty of times throughout scripture - most of the verses you quoted included - where "jewels" means "jewels" and "gold" actually means, well, "gold". That's why the apostles used them to compare things to, so that we could gain a grasp of the superiority of the riches of Christ. If you want to build a case that demands that every instance of gold or jewels means "the word of God", then we can start another thread and examine that house of cards all day long.

If there are some instances where "jewels" means "jewels" than the colors and symbols attached to those jewels can have deeper meaning...but that doesn't negate the splendor of, well, actual jewels adorning the city that He is presenting to His people. Same with the throne room in Rev. 4: the "emerald rainbow" has much meaning in the manner in which it displays "mercy" around the throne...but there's no reason to doubt that there will be a rainbow around His throne when we see Him. I could go on, but I'm hoping you won't.

Abraham, according to Heb. 11 seemed to think that he would dwell in an actual city, whose builder and maker is God. If there is an actual city, what would it look like? Am I limiting myself to imagine that there really will be a diamond city with streets of gold, with walls higher than anyone thought possible (including you)? "An outrageous literal interpretation" indeed.

Clifton
Jun 6th 2008, 09:25 PM
I reacall that the Pharisees said the same thing to Jesus when He was only pointing out what God said. You really have to be more careful, and if you are older then you should be a good example to others.

Let me provide some clarity here – there were about seven houses of the Pharisees. One or more those houses had changed perverted what YHWH and Mosheh said, and that was the issue Yeshua had with those particular Pharisees. Would Yeshua have issues with that training manual you seem to be adhering to? :hmm:


Yes the new Jerusalem replaces the old Jerusalem as the ruling city over the nations in the millennium. The “New Jerusalem” will replace the “Heavenly Jerusalem” of the Millennium. For about the twentieth time, “New Jerusalem” was an IDIOM The Seer used for the Eternal Abode.


Why rely on John Wesley. Mercy sakes alive, there you go again – changing the contexts of what was said. You claimed, in effect, that I was just making all this up and it was “my” ideas, so to show what a load of fibbing that was, I presented readings of John Wesley of nearly 300 years ago, long before I was born, and to show that was a fib, and that I was not saying anything unknown to saints and was nothing new. I hardly ever even look at expositions of John Wesley – I was curious as to whether anyone had such a notion of combining the Heavenly Jerusalem for the Millennium of this Earth into the New Jerusalem of Eternal, beyond these physical realms.


It was quite common by the churches, apparently, to regard the Jerusalem of the millennium as being the restoration of the old Jerusalem alone, and regard the Heavenly Jerusalem as the eternal abode coming down after the millennium. By “which” “churches” which accepted Revelation? And also, the Heavenly Jerusalem comes down out of Heaven from God upon a desolate Jerusalem for the Millennium, but after that “day” (which in our view of times last several years – cp. Psalms 90:4), this current physical Earth is “sent away” (to where, we do not know, perhaps because knowing that, must be far beyond our comprehension), and there is a better and newer Earth, which the New Jerusalem comes down out of Heaven from God on the new Earth. So since this Earth will be gone to wherever, and there will be a brand new and different one, we see the lack of coherency in your statement when weighed with the scriptures.


However it is the Heavenly Jerusalem described in Rev.21 which comes down as a Bride to rule over the mortal nations, which is the support and influence over the Jerusalem of stone where children will play in its streets. Read all Zech. Uh-huh, and after that, this current physical Earth is sent away, and there is a brand new one, and then the NEW JERUSALEM comes down on that new Earth. That is what the scriptures, in the integral, teach. By your reference to Zechariah, you pit scriptures against scriptures – disjointing snippets from the contexts instead of balancing them for cohesion. If there were nothing new for Revelation, there would be no need for it, would there? The NT presents us with clarity and new things. The NT has Paul getting a revelation that is stated to be unknown beforehand. Okay?


There is no further coming down of an eternal abode for the saints after the last judgment. The scriptures say otherwise. And none of this supports animal sacrifices in the Millennium.


You have relied on your misapplication of the word "new". :rofl: Coming from someone whom is not acquainted with the Hebrew and Greek, I have to ask, “Are you running out of straws?” :D There are 2 different Greek words where the English word “new” gets used, and while the issue of which Greek word matters, I have already several times pointed out that “New Jerusalem” (ιερουσαλημ<2419> {N-PRI} καινην<2537> {A-ASF}) was an idiom for referring to that in the Eternal Abode. The idea that you would suggest civilizations for thousands of years has “misapplied” καινην is most amusing indeed. There is no way of “misapply” it’s meaning – it quite simplistic. :P


You have already called me a fibber in defence of your position, and boasted of your experience, study and age, to sway me that you are correct, and quoted from men rather than from the bible except for a couple of words, so it is best not to do those things and then wink and say "blessings" when you provide no supporting scripture and accuse me of introducing something new to fudge them. Well, the posts on this board which substantiates that (your lack of remorse is not surprising now), and I have quoted you with “supporting verses,” but it appears when I do, you rework them into something else which does not translate back into the Hebrew/Greek they came from – thus, the scriptures and the contexts I provide unaltered do support what I say – but if one’s reworking of scriptures does not support it, that is not my fault;

Seriously, and heartily, I have to ask: Don’t you think it is time to check out some other “training manuals” and systems, and make comparisons? Don’t feel bad, it happens to most of us, and we have had to do this. It will keep you from desideration to rework a verse or more for Revelation 21 to say something like, “as for the … Jerusalem that came down”, and stick to what it does say, and Keep the verse(s) AS-IS;

Until then, it is best to accept the fact, that if scriptures teach us that “well watered grass” is the color of green, and one adheres to a system or training manual that teaches that it is the colored purple, they are just going to have to live with the fact that some of us are going to stick with what the scriptures say that the color is green, especially for us that open our eyes up and see it as such. ;)

Hey, you could go with the color of BLUE for grass – just pick ya up a Banjo for BLUE GRASS. :rofl:


then wink and say "blessings" I generally always sign off with the signature “blessings”, and as for the wink, that was to show that I am not as hyped up about the issue – I have the scriptures and I am well and fine, so euphoric, I have to shout: somebody catch my soul for it is willing to fly away... :pp

BLESSINGS! :)

Merton
Jun 6th 2008, 11:27 PM
Again, you have skewed what I said. Please look again at the snippet (please note the bolded text):

“…The Seer, John, modeled some of his work on some of the Pseudepigrapha (and other materials) to convey what he saw and to make his statements (or just make quotes from those material), and one of the main ones out of the Pseudepigrapha he used was correlated to 1 Enoch as we have it today…”




You provide no evidence for your assersion. Jude did not need to use any of the quotes from non-biblical books either. God spoke directly to Jude what he should write which only verifies that the original prophecy was authentic but does not prove that Jude or anyone else used those books nor that any of those books should be used or that anything else in the books is correct.

You are suggesting that God did not complete His entire work in the Bible itself and that it is sufficient.



Disjointing snippets from context changes the contexts. By your disjointed quote here, we should not pay attention to the Bible at all, including the quote itself. Now that is so quite puzzling and illogical.

Then you did not read what I had actually said. You seized on an oportunity to critize, and that is why I said all that I had said but you ignored it.


1)
You skew what the scriptures point out and derail from what I stated. One Jerusalem of one stature and nature does not descend twice. I have iterated that more than once. One is of “one nature and stature”, which is temporal, and the other, which descends after the Millennium is Eternal (The one and the last referred to in Revelation 3:12, 21:2). And I know of no such thing as “animal sacrifices” during the Millennium, and do not see that when considering the statements in Isaiah Chapters 11 & 65.

I do not believe in animal sacrifices in the millennnium either, but the description of them in the OT as being in the millennium is the only way that the new covenant realities could (lawfully actually ) be given to carnal mankind. The OT teachers were required to obtain their understandings from God individually as we are today and NOT borrow them from one another.

All we can do is to inspire others to do the same when we tell others to get their understandings from the Lord. It is not being super spiritual or proud or claiming that our understandings are correct but just what the Lord says to do and is not advice to go outside of the Bible, or to not read it in order to do so.

There is only one eternal and new Heavenly city into which the believers enter, but it makes perfect sense that a city is needed during the millennium because of what is outside of it, but is not needed when God is All in All after the last judgment, and a Heavenly Husband and Bride is NOT the illustrated arrangement of Christ with His brothers eternally.

The Bible gives it that a new Jerusalem will replace the old of the OT which fell into sin, not that a new Jerusalem will replace the millennium Heavenly city. Isaiah chapter one.





2)
You quoted John 16:13 – so as you read the “Messianic Scriptures” (NT), and hopefully contextually chapter to chapter and book to book, you find that these scriptures “clear up” and “enhance” things in the Tanak (OT). Yeshua cleared up a lot issues concerning the commandments, that there is more than just the letter of the law, there is the spirit of the law (e.g. looking upon a woman with lust is just the same as adultery, and so on, which is not in the OT), and defied changes to the Law that one or more houses of the Pharisees had changed (their human-only inventions).

We do not need John Wesleys versions of scripture or other sourses to explain scripture to us. If we are incapable of grasping the meanings of scripture then we can not contain the answers in a righteous manner of worth to ourselves or anyone else. If we fail,to obey the simple instructions of Christ then He will not give us anything of Himself to carry into the world from Him in Heaven.


3)
I have often noted that people which quoted and said things like John 16:13, they depart from that themselves and resort to the teachings and inventions of man, which, does not translate back into the Hebrew and Greek hence where it came from, not even synonymously. Isn’t that intriguing?

You may not use this to support your case about having two occassions of Jerusalem coming down, in which the latter coming is fuller or different somehow from the City's initial coming down.


That “I” resort to? I know that I do not have “secretarial Typing” skills, and thus, some of my English constructions are not well – I could get an award for that – but I assume that SOME others can decipher the errors, at least most of the time – I have been able to decipher the posts of others that make similar typing errors. Nonetheless, I checked what you quoted, and it should be obvious as to what I did state. Let me expound further:

According to The Book of Revelation and the documents it relates to and surrounds it, The Seer has interpreted past events under the form of a prophecy, which was not a new thing to do, but was the manner of apocalyptic writers" Such a procedure belongs to Jewish apocalyptic but not to Christian, until we advance well into the 2nd century. They modeled these prophecies on using literature and documents of their present times and past times to convey what they saw in their visions – especially since some visions would contain things that were not yet in existence at the time of the vision, or visions. Say like a Seer might do today: get a vision and uses the resources of these times and past times to best convey them into words, say like, model them on Hitler, The Pearl Harbor and Japan Bombings, Viet Nam, and whatever, and use some Jewish-Christian literature (including out of the Bible) to convey what the vision says is coming into the future.

No, Clifton. There was and is not to be some collusion between one prophet and another. Human frailty is well understood by Christ .

A prophet must stand alone in the presence of Christ to hear what He alone has to say and to say that alone and nothing more or less. The error of leaning on the words of other men introduces more error, and so many hours of worthless sermons are made at the expense of hearing from Gods congregation what the Spirit says to the Churches by taking short cuts which lead no where of any eternal significance.


Thus, let us note that some of those resources include some of the OT and NT, which “I” resort to. The Book of Revelation is not loaded with “new” words and phrases that did not already exist in previous literature (especially the scriptures). There is also DSS Revelation (though it is a “stream of text” within another work), which The Book of Revelation is loaded with. DSS Revelation has been placed around 200 – 69 B.C. - but probably not later than 69 B.C. – but that is just an “IMO”, because generally, the time given between the scrolls is over 100 years, so that is why my “IMO” places it no later than 69 B.C.;

I am not disapproving of such research but of obtaining your understandings of scripture from them by coming to conclusions contrary to what scripture states.


As I stated in a post yesterday morning, bear in mind that The Book of Revelation was not always an “accepted book” in all canons, or by all regions and sections of saints, and to the best of my knowledge, has never been 100% universally accepted. But the problems with it were acknowledged in the early ages, by people like Victorinus of Pettau (whom sought a redaction of the book). In fact, if Martin Luther had his way, and had not reluctantly bowed to tradition, The "Book of Revelation" would not be in the "Protestant Bibles", as well as "Hebrews", "James", and "Jude", because he had an extra criteria for which books should be included in the Protestant Bible;

Well you may think I am boasting or being proud when I say that I have a sure method given me by which I can know the truth and what books, chapters, verses, are authentic of the Bible, but it can take some time to come to the place where Gods seal is given me on what the truth exactly is in a matter but it does happen and it is not through the study of what other men say.

Other men can and do draw my attention to matters but the correct understandings of matters can only come from the Lord in which case I am claiming that the new Jerusalem is only new by reason of its replacing the old of the OT and not replacing the one of the millennium,
because the scripture states that it does, and is a main theme of scripture--


Isa 1:21 Oh how the faithful city has become a harlot! She was full of justice; righteousness lodged in it. But now, murderers!
Isa 1:22 Your silver has become dross; your wine is diluted with water.
Isa 1:23 Your princes are rebellious and companions of thieves. Everyone loves a bribe, and is pursuing rewards. They do not judge the orphan, nor does the cause of the widow come to them,
Isa 1:24 and says the Lord, Jehovah of Hosts, the mighty One of Israel, Alas! I will be eased of My foes, and avenge Myself of My enemies.
Isa 1:25 And I will return My hand on you, and refine your dross, as with lye, and turn aside all your alloy.
Isa 1:26 And I will return your judges as at the first; and your advisors, as at the beginning; then you shall be called the city of righteousness, a faithful city.
No further event of another coming of the Holy City is mentioned in scripture.

Heb 11:8 Having been called out by faith, Abraham obeyed to go forth to a place which he was going to receive for an inheritance; and he went out not understanding where he went.
Heb 11:9 By faith he resided as a foreigner in a land of promise, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the joint-heirs of the same promise;
Heb 11:10 for he looked forward to a city having the foundations of which the builder and maker is God.


Heb 11:13 These all died by way of faith, not having received the promises, but seeing them from afar, and being persuaded, and having embraced and confessed that they are aliens and tenants on the earth.
Heb 11:14 For those saying such things make clear that they seek a fatherland.
Heb 11:15 And truly if they remembered that from which they came out, they had time to return.
Heb 11:16 But now they stretch forth to a better, that is, a heavenly land. Therefore, God is not ashamed of them, for Him to be called their God; for He prepared a city for them.
Heb 11:38 of whom the world was not worthy, wandering in deserts, and mountains, and caves, and the holes of the earth.
Heb 11:39 And having obtained witness through the faith, these all did not obtain the promise,
Heb 11:40 God having foreseen something better concerning us, that they should not be perfected apart from us.

Merton.

Merton
Jun 6th 2008, 11:56 PM
The “New Jerusalem” will replace the “Heavenly Jerusalem” of the Millennium. For about the twentieth time, “New Jerusalem” was an IDIOM The Seer used for the Eternal Abode.

So you do not think that the Heavenly Jerusalem is the new Jerusalem which Abraham was to expect and that it is not the etrnal abode of the saints.

.


By “which” “churches” which accepted Revelation? And also, the Heavenly Jerusalem comes down out of Heaven from God upon a desolate Jerusalem for the Millennium, but after that “day” (which in our view of times last several years – cp. Psalms 90:4), this current physical Earth is “sent away” (to where, we do not know, perhaps because knowing that, must be far beyond our comprehension), and there is a better and newer Earth, which the New Jerusalem comes down out of Heaven from God on the new Earth. So since this Earth will be gone to wherever, and there will be a brand new and different one, we see the lack of coherency in your statement when weighed with the scriptures.

According to Zech 12 and Rev.11, Jerusalem is not desolate when the Heavenly Jerusalem comes down from Heaven.


Uh-huh, and after that, this current physical Earth is sent away, and there is a brand new one, and then the NEW JERUSALEM comes down on that new Earth.

Rev. ch 21 verse one is an end chapter 20 . Rev.21:2 should be verse one. The text itself indicates this to be so---

Rev 20:11 And I saw a Great White Throne, and the One sitting on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled; and a place was not found for them.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God. And books were opened. And another Book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged out of the things written in the books, according to their works.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead in it. And death and hell gave up the dead in them. And they were each judged according to their works.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were thrown into the Lake of Fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And if anyone was not found having been written in the Book of Life, he was thrown into the Lake of Fire.
Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and the sea no longer is.

-------------------------------------
Rev 21:2 And I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of Heaven from God, having been prepared as a bride, having been adorned for her Husband.



That is what the scriptures, in the integral, teach. By your reference to Zechariah, you pit scriptures against scriptures – disjointing snippets from the contexts instead of balancing them for cohesion. If there were nothing new for Revelation, there would be no need for it, would there? The NT presents us with clarity and new things. The NT has Paul getting a revelation that is stated to be unknown beforehand. Okay?

Paul expressly indicated if he had some new revelation from the Lord, but in the case of the new Jerusalem, John did not, for the Revelation book completes the same revelations of Isaiah and other books and there was no mention of two coming downs of the one Jerusalem ( or any changes to it after its completion at the first coming of Christ to raise the saints from the dead. (this fact disproves your theory by itself)


:rofl: Coming from someone whom is not acquainted with the Hebrew and Greek, I have to ask, “Are you running out of straws?” :D There are 2 different Greek words where the English word “new” gets used, and while the issue of which Greek word matters, I have already several times pointed out that “New Jerusalem” (ιερουσαλημ<2419> {N-PRI} καινην<2537> {A-ASF}) was an idiom for referring to that in the Eternal Abode. The idea that you would suggest civilizations for thousands of years has “misapplied” καινην is most amusing indeed. There is no way of “misapply” it’s meaning – it quite simplistic. :P

The New Jerusalem is the one which the saints expect to come and it is Heavenly . Nowhere in the Bible is an expectation given of two different comings of Jerusalem.




Well, the posts on this board which substantiates that (your lack of remorse is not surprising now), and I have quoted you with “supporting verses,” but it appears when I do, you rework them into something else which does not translate back into the Hebrew/Greek they came from – thus, the scriptures and the contexts I provide unaltered do support what I say – but if one’s reworking of scriptures does not support it, that is not my fault;

It is your fault when you try to bulldose others into believing your own conclusions from these different words which the bulk of scripture does not support (your conclusions that is)




Seriously, and heartily, I have to ask: Don’t you think it is time to check out some other “training manuals” and systems, and make comparisons? Don’t feel bad, it happens to most of us, and we have had to do this. It will keep you from desideration to rework a verse or more for Revelation 21 to say something like, “as for the … Jerusalem that came down”, and stick to what it does say, and Keep the verse(s) AS-IS;

Until then, it is best to accept the fact, that if scriptures teach us that “well watered grass” is the color of green, and one adheres to a system or training manual that teaches that it is the colored purple, they are just going to have to live with the fact that some of us are going to stick with what the scriptures say that the color is green, especially for us that open our eyes up and see it as such. ;)

Hey, you could go with the color of BLUE for grass – just pick ya up a Banjo for BLUE GRASS. :rofl:

I generally always sign off with the signature “blessings”, and as for the wink, that was to show that I am not as hyped up about the issue – I have the scriptures and I am well and fine, so euphoric, I have to shout: somebody catch my soul for it is willing to fly away... :pp

BLESSINGS! :)

I have always had difficulty in accepting that believers who delight in putting other people down in order to support their arguement, can also be enjoying God's blessings at the same time, but I do have to get used to it, because such a contradiction exists in most all of us in some way.

Merton.

Firstfruits
Jun 8th 2008, 10:54 AM
Let me provide some clarity here – there were about seven houses of the Pharisees. One or more those houses had changed perverted what YHWH and Mosheh said, and that was the issue Yeshua had with those particular Pharisees. Would Yeshua have issues with that training manual you seem to be adhering to? :hmm:

The “New Jerusalem” will replace the “Heavenly Jerusalem” of the Millennium. For about the twentieth time, “New Jerusalem” was an IDIOM The Seer used for the Eternal Abode.

Mercy sakes alive, there you go again – changing the contexts of what was said. You claimed, in effect, that I was just making all this up and it was “my” ideas, so to show what a load of fibbing that was, I presented readings of John Wesley of nearly 300 years ago, long before I was born, and to show that was a fib, and that I was not saying anything unknown to saints and was nothing new. I hardly ever even look at expositions of John Wesley – I was curious as to whether anyone had such a notion of combining the Heavenly Jerusalem for the Millennium of this Earth into the New Jerusalem of Eternal, beyond these physical realms.

By “which” “churches” which accepted Revelation? And also, the Heavenly Jerusalem comes down out of Heaven from God upon a desolate Jerusalem for the Millennium, but after that “day” (which in our view of times last several years – cp. Psalms 90:4), this current physical Earth is “sent away” (to where, we do not know, perhaps because knowing that, must be far beyond our comprehension), and there is a better and newer Earth, which the New Jerusalem comes down out of Heaven from God on the new Earth. So since this Earth will be gone to wherever, and there will be a brand new and different one, we see the lack of coherency in your statement when weighed with the scriptures.

Uh-huh, and after that, this current physical Earth is sent away, and there is a brand new one, and then the NEW JERUSALEM comes down on that new Earth. That is what the scriptures, in the integral, teach. By your reference to Zechariah, you pit scriptures against scriptures – disjointing snippets from the contexts instead of balancing them for cohesion. If there were nothing new for Revelation, there would be no need for it, would there? The NT presents us with clarity and new things. The NT has Paul getting a revelation that is stated to be unknown beforehand. Okay?

The scriptures say otherwise. And none of this supports animal sacrifices in the Millennium.

:rofl: Coming from someone whom is not acquainted with the Hebrew and Greek, I have to ask, “Are you running out of straws?” :D There are 2 different Greek words where the English word “new” gets used, and while the issue of which Greek word matters, I have already several times pointed out that “New Jerusalem” (ιερουσαλημ<2419> {N-PRI} καινην<2537> {A-ASF}) was an idiom for referring to that in the Eternal Abode. The idea that you would suggest civilizations for thousands of years has “misapplied” καινην is most amusing indeed. There is no way of “misapply” it’s meaning – it quite simplistic. :P

Well, the posts on this board which substantiates that (your lack of remorse is not surprising now), and I have quoted you with “supporting verses,” but it appears when I do, you rework them into something else which does not translate back into the Hebrew/Greek they came from – thus, the scriptures and the contexts I provide unaltered do support what I say – but if one’s reworking of scriptures does not support it, that is not my fault;

Seriously, and heartily, I have to ask: Don’t you think it is time to check out some other “training manuals” and systems, and make comparisons? Don’t feel bad, it happens to most of us, and we have had to do this. It will keep you from desideration to rework a verse or more for Revelation 21 to say something like, “as for the … Jerusalem that came down”, and stick to what it does say, and Keep the verse(s) AS-IS;

Until then, it is best to accept the fact, that if scriptures teach us that “well watered grass” is the color of green, and one adheres to a system or training manual that teaches that it is the colored purple, they are just going to have to live with the fact that some of us are going to stick with what the scriptures say that the color is green, especially for us that open our eyes up and see it as such. ;)

Hey, you could go with the color of BLUE for grass – just pick ya up a Banjo for BLUE GRASS. :rofl:

I generally always sign off with the signature “blessings”, and as for the wink, that was to show that I am not as hyped up about the issue – I have the scriptures and I am well and fine, so euphoric, I have to shout: somebody catch my soul for it is willing to fly away... :pp

BLESSINGS! :)

Hi Cliffton,

According what is written in this scripture, how many New Jerusalems has God said he will create?

Is 65:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=65&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
Is 65:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=65&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
Is 65:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=65&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.

Is 66:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=66&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her:
Is 66:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=66&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem.

Is he going to create one or two from what is written?

Clifton
Jun 11th 2008, 04:12 PM
The Bible gives it that a new Jerusalem will replace the old of the OT which fell into sin, not that a new Jerusalem will replace the millennium Heavenly city. Isaiah chapter one.

The Heavenly Jerusalem comes first, which descends upon the desolation of the man version of the Earthly Jerusalem. The New Jerusalem, comes afterwards - its stature is of a higher nature because it is for the Eternal Abode. The fact anyone would want to downplay the highest spiritual things, especially that which is eternal, really tells me something about that person.

However, semantically speaking, the Heavenly Jerusalem could be referred to as “new” when compared to what is on Earth is now, since “new” can also mean “different”. But that changes after the Millennium for the Eternal One, which Revelation is quite clear about. That is why The Seer used the words and phrases he used, to show the differences. We accept that this was a new revelation. “New Jerusalem” is used here to refer to the Eternal Abode, which is coherent with “New Earth”, and “New Heavens”;
NEW Heaven;
NEW Jerusalem;
NEW Earth.
These all refer to the Eternal Abode. That which descends for the Millennium is referred to as the beloved city, the Heavenly Jerusalem, because it is just that – only the saints will be on the inside while sinners and the unrepentant are outside. We say at times about things in this current world as “heavenly”, but that Jerusalem that will be on this Earth is literally Heavenly, and accurately applied;

Not everybody confuses the difference of these with what comes before them (the NEW). There are only a handful of places in the book of Revelation that refer to these “new” things for the Eternal Abode (AFTER THE MILLENNIUM, THE VANISHING OF THIS EARTH AND HEAVEN, THE SECOND RESURRECTION AND THE JUDGMENT {OF BOTH GOOD (Given up from the Treasuries/Chambers; “sea” is an error and corruption of the text) AND BAD (Given up from Death and Hades)}):

Section H
(The Eternal Abode: The everlasting Kingdom in the New Heaven and New Earth and the New Jerusalem.)

21:5a.4d.5b.1-4abc 22:3-5. The new heaven, the new earth, and the New Jerusalem. The faithful reign as kings for ever and ever,
CHAPTER 21-B
(21:5a) He who sits on the throne said, (4d) “The first things have passed away. (5b) Behold, I am making all things new;” (21:1) I saw a new heaven (or, sky) and a new earth: for the first heaven (or, sky) and the first earth have passed away, and the sea is no more. (2) I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready like a bride adorned for her husband. (3) I heard a loud voice out of heaven saying, “Behold, God’s dwelling is with people, and he will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. (4a-c) He will wipe away from them every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more {fig., death no longer will exist}; neither will there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain, any more {fig., pain will no longer exist}.” CHAPTER 22-B
(22:3a) There will be no curse any more.
(3bc) The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants serve him. (4) They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. (5) There will be no night, and they need no lamp light; for the Lord God will illuminate them. They will reign forever and ever.
For the Millennium section, where the Beloved City-Heavenly Jerusalem is, and the clauses and sentences referring to it, please see post on this board:

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1666703

Somebody there shares a trait of yours.


Isa 1:21 Oh how the faithful city has become a harlot! She was full of justice; righteousness lodged in it. But now, murderers!
Isa 1:22 Your silver has become dross; your wine is diluted with water.
Isa 1:23 Your princes are rebellious and companions of thieves. Everyone loves a bribe, and is pursuing rewards. They do not judge the orphan, nor does the cause of the widow come to them,
Isa 1:24 and says the Lord, Jehovah of Hosts, the mighty One of Israel, Alas! I will be eased of My foes, and avenge Myself of My enemies.
Isa 1:25 And I will return My hand on you, and refine your dross, as with lye, and turn aside all your alloy.
Isa 1:26 And I will return your judges as at the first; and your advisors, as at the beginning; then you shall be called the city of righteousness, a faithful city.

No further event of another coming of the Holy City is mentioned in scripture. It is clarified in the Book of Revelation. You are just pitting scriptures against scriptures and disjointing snippets from contexts again. The Old Testament prophets did not foresee the distinction between the millennium and eternity; thus, these two truths were intertwined in Isaiah’s prophecy. The prophet saw the new Jerusalem of the last days on this side, and the new Jerusalem of the new earth on the other, blended as it were together, and did not distinguish the one from the other; Thus, in the prophet's view, the Jerusalem of the period of glory in this world and the Jerusalem of the eternal glory beyond flow into one another;

It is John’s explanation in Revelation that allows us to differentiate these two phases of the future visible kingdom of God. So if one feels the need to intertwine the differentiations, they do not accept The Book of Revelation as legitimate, and if they “say” they do, then that is just self-contradiction and nonsensical.

Blessings.

Clifton
Jun 13th 2008, 02:17 PM
According what is written in this scripture, how many New Jerusalems has God said he will create?

Is 65:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=65&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
Is 65:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=65&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
Is 65:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=65&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.

Is 66:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=66&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her:
Is 66:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=66&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem.

Is he going to create one or two from what is written?

Hi FirstFruits,

This has already been addressed in your thread, and has nothing to do with a “man-made temple” in the Millennium and “sin-offerings”. YHWH can create, renew, etc. all He wants. ;)

You could start a thread if you wish to collect more info and insights from others. Drop me a note if you do create the thread (and where it is and is titled) and I’ll expound on the part in Isa. 65:17, “the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind”, unless of course, you want to look at Jeremiah 3:16 and figure it out yourself. :P

I’ll say that we’re not really told that much in the Bible (our Canon) about the "afterlife" on "the other side", after the New Heavens/Earth/Jerusalem comes (Revelation 21:5a.4d.5b.1-4abc 22:3-5). But we know we’ll be with Him and worship Him. The New Testament in The Bible does inform us of some clarifications, especially of that for the Millennium (also referred to as the “Messianic Era”) and afterwards, that the old prophets did not always comprehend and sort out – for example, we know that the Heavenly Jerusalem that will come down out of heaven from God (Revelation 21:10) will be in an “era” that will not be of an “indefinite time”, thus, the expression “1000 years”. Before the NT, I believe the thought with some people was that human life on this current Earth was just going to go on and on and have no end (however, there would still come a Jerusalem that only saints will be in) – of course, for those not accepting the NT, or at least the book of Revelation, I guess such a thought still remains with some them.

BTW, converting it into English (Revelation 21:16-17), the Jerusalem in “The Messianic Age” will be 1,363 MILES in length, CUBICLE! The walls will be a little over 200 Feet thick! Fort Knox would love that! :)

Don’t know, but I have doubts that the American Continent will here then – at least not in the habitable sense - Just a thought (at least for now).

Blessings!

Nihil Obstat
Jun 14th 2008, 11:25 PM
I'm probably about five pages behind by now, but it's because I'm in Ft. Leonard Wood for my Army Annual Training (AT). I literally don't have time to catch up reading, and I don't know if this thread is still on track or what is being discussed, but I did want to ask two questions to those who disagree that there will be sacrifices made in a temple in Jerusalem during the millennial reign of Jesus.

1) Why would God show Ezekiel a temple where He said He would dwell *forever* (43:7) if it was contingent upon a people's response under the old covenant, seeing that the cross was not "Plan B"? How could God promise something that would hinder the cross of Christ, and keep many OT prophecies of Jesus' death from coming to pass? Could Eze. 40-48 have come to pass in Ezekiel's day, His glory remain present in the temple forever, and still have Jesus' incarnation and crucifixion later happen?

2) Talk to me about the Sermon on the Mount. What was the *first* thing Jesus did after coming down the mountain? Did He not heal a man, and then command him to show himself to the priests and make a sacrifice according to the law of Moses (Matt. 8:4; cp. Lev. 14)? Why did He say this? Do you think His apostles made sacrifices for sins while following Him during His earthly ministry? Why or why not?

Lk.11

Merton
Jun 15th 2008, 12:33 AM
I'm probably about five pages behind by now, but it's because I'm in Ft. Leonard Wood for my Army Annual Training (AT). I literally don't have time to catch up reading, and I don't know if this thread is still on track or what is being discussed, but I did want to ask two questions to those who disagree that there will be sacrifices made in a temple in Jerusalem during the millennial reign of Jesus.

1) Why would God show Ezekiel a temple where He said He would dwell *forever* (43:7) if it was contingent upon a people's response under the old covenant, seeing that the cross was not "Plan B"? How could God promise something that would hinder the cross of Christ, and keep many OT prophecies of Jesus' death from coming to pass? Could Eze. 40-48 have come to pass in Ezekiel's day, His glory remain present in the temple forever, and still have Jesus' incarnation and crucifixion later happen?

My understanding is that Ez.ch's 40-48 spans from Pentecost through the return of Christ when the saints receive their inheritance of reigning with Him until the end of this present creation in all of which time the gospel remains the same.

The truths are taught in stone from which God gives understanding to those who seek Him with a pure heart (their motive for wanting to know is right)


2) Talk to me about the Sermon on the Mount. What was the *first* thing Jesus did after coming down the mountain? Did He not heal a man, and then command him to show himself to the priests and make a sacrifice according to the law of Moses (Matt. 8:4; cp. Lev. 14)? Why did He say this? Do you think His apostles made sacrifices for sins while following Him during His earthly ministry? Why or why not?

Lk.11

They were still under the law under which Christ was born. Christ was not yet crucified and the new covenant put in place.

Once the New covenant was inaugerated then the law of sacrifices of animals etc. was abolished, that is not recognised by God because to do the old is to deny the new if one is aware of the new.

All living creatures under mankind speak something of the nature of human characteristics. That is something to consider as we observe their behavour, and sub-human from certain creatures as well if you get my meaning.

The behavour of life in the sea is also observed as secrets for the behavour of nations and also of churches.

Man and trees/types of trees etc is another example.

Then there are the things in the heavens.

No wonder that man is without excuse.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Psa 19:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork.
Psa 19:2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge.
Psa 19:3Thereis no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
Psa 19:4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
Psa 19:5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
Psa 19:6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof. (etc.)

A seach of wisdom from Job, Psalms, Proverbs, and Eccl is interesting.

Merton.

wpm
Jun 15th 2008, 12:34 AM
1) Why would God show Ezekiel a temple where He said He would dwell *forever* (43:7) if it was contingent upon a people's response under the old covenant, seeing that the cross was not "Plan B"? How could God promise something that would hinder the cross of Christ, and keep many OT prophecies of Jesus' death from coming to pass? Could Eze. 40-48 have come to pass in Ezekiel's day, His glory remain present in the temple forever, and still have Jesus' incarnation and crucifixion later happen?

First it was given in the OT to an OT people. This was not to a millennial company. Also, it was conditional.

Secondly, God gave this prophecy to Old Testament Israel (like every Old Testament promise or type) as a shadow of the reality, substance and perfection that was to come in Christ. The whole Old Testament Judaic system was an imperfect shadow that could in no way fulfil the redemptive plan of God for mankind, but simply pointed forward to the Saviour. It was unsatisfactory and unpleasing as an administration; that is why it was replaced.

Hebrews 8:6 tells us that Jesus “is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.”

Thirdly, it should be remembered that these old covenant animal sacrifices were expiatiatory and propitiatiatory. The word expiation simply means to cover. The word propitiation means to appease. Propitiation is directed toward God and appeases His wrath on the merits of another, whereas, substitution is directed towards man and allows Him to approach a holy God on the merits of another. These two elements are found in the Old Testament atonements. However, when Christ made that final sacrifice for sin He satisfied all God’s holy demands for sin and uncleanness and thus Christ became the final propitiation and substitution for the sinner.

Fourthly, the Mosaic animal sacrifices were viewed totally different by God before Calvary than after. Before Calvary, whilst being imperfect, they (1) temporarily appeased God’s wrath, (2) covered for the Israelites sin and (3) allowed him to approach a thrice holy God in confidence that he was accepted. Notwithstanding, through Calvary, they were rendered (1) obsolete and (2) an offence to God’s perfect final eternal provision. Therefore, the practice of them after Calvary became a symbol of rebellion and offence rather than a pre-figuring of the true, real and eternal provision. God gave instructions, ordinances and rites in the past, and then as time goes on and His plan unfolds He changes/eliminates some of them. He also gives new instruction. What was classed as holy in the Old Testament is not necessarily holy anymore.

Fifthly, the New Testament repeatedly tells us that the animal sacrifices (the shadow) have been removed through Christ's one all-sufficient sacrifice at Calvary (the substance) and therefore rendered these rites obsolete. Premillers try to revive the old covenant with its innate ordinances, practices and offices that God has eternally removed, bringing them into direct competition with God’s final sacrifice for sin – the Lord Jesus Christ.



2) Talk to me about the Sermon on the Mount. What was the *first* thing Jesus did after coming down the mountain? Did He not heal a man, and then command him to show himself to the priests and make a sacrifice according to the law of Moses (Matt. 8:4; cp. Lev. 14)? Why did He say this? Do you think His apostles made sacrifices for sins while following Him during His earthly ministry? Why or why not?

Lk.11


The cross still hadn't happened yet. The blood of the new covenant had to be made first.

Paul

Merton
Jun 15th 2008, 09:02 AM
The Heavenly Jerusalem comes first, which descends upon the desolation of the man version of the Earthly Jerusalem. The New Jerusalem, comes afterwards - its stature is of a higher nature because it is for the Eternal Abode. The fact anyone would want to downplay the highest spiritual things, especially that which is eternal, really tells me something about that person.

.

Thanks again Clifton.

Merton.

Firstfruits
Jun 15th 2008, 07:46 PM
Hi FirstFruits,

This has already been addressed in your thread, and has nothing to do with a “man-made temple” in the Millennium and “sin-offerings”. YHWH can create, renew, etc. all He wants. ;)

You could start a thread if you wish to collect more info and insights from others. Drop me a note if you do create the thread (and where it is and is titled) and I’ll expound on the part in Isa. 65:17, “the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind”, unless of course, you want to look at Jeremiah 3:16 and figure it out yourself. :P

I’ll say that we’re not really told that much in the Bible (our Canon) about the "afterlife" on "the other side", after the New Heavens/Earth/Jerusalem comes (Revelation 21:5a.4d.5b.1-4abc 22:3-5). But we know we’ll be with Him and worship Him. The New Testament in The Bible does inform us of some clarifications, especially of that for the Millennium (also referred to as the “Messianic Era”) and afterwards, that the old prophets did not always comprehend and sort out – for example, we know that the Heavenly Jerusalem that will come down out of heaven from God (Revelation 21:10) will be in an “era” that will not be of an “indefinite time”, thus, the expression “1000 years”. Before the NT, I believe the thought with some people was that human life on this current Earth was just going to go on and on and have no end (however, there would still come a Jerusalem that only saints will be in) – of course, for those not accepting the NT, or at least the book of Revelation, I guess such a thought still remains with some them.

BTW, converting it into English (Revelation 21:16-17), the Jerusalem in “The Messianic Age” will be 1,363 MILES in length, CUBICLE! The walls will be a little over 200 Feet thick! Fort Knox would love that! :)

Don’t know, but I have doubts that the American Continent will here then – at least not in the habitable sense - Just a thought (at least for now).

Blessings!

I suppose no matter what it shall be, that is why it is written that the former shall not be remembered nor come to mind.

Isa. 65:17, “the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind”,

God bless!!

Firstfruits

Clifton
Jun 15th 2008, 08:49 PM
I suppose no matter what it shall be, that is why it is written that the former shall not be remembered nor come to mind.

Isa. 65:17, “the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind”,

God bless!!

Firstfruits

To modernize it - it means lack of “OCD” (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) ;)

… so that he who blesses himself in the earth does bless himself in the Elohim of truth. And he who swears in the earth does swear by the Elohim of truth. Because the former distresses shall be forgotten, and because they shall be hidden from My eyes. “For look, I am creating new heavens and a new earth, and the former shall not be remembered, nor come to heart. - Isaiah 65:16-17, The Scriptures 1998+
(The text block is Isaiah 65:13-16)
The correctness of the “former” explanation is shown by the parallel in Jeremiah 3:16, which stands in by no means an accidental relation to this passage, and where it is stated that in the future there will be no ark of the covenant, “Neither would it come to heart, nor would they remember it,” inasmuch as all Jerusalem will be the throne of YHWH, and not merely the capporeth with its symbolical cherubim.

So, it relates to the thought of which “ascends” within us, and with which we are inwardly occupied (OCD! ;) ). Now, note there is no necessity to take the futures in Isaiah 65:17 as commands, even if we take them as simple predictions. Instead of such a possible, though not actual, calling back and wishing back, those who survive the new times are called upon rather to rejoice for ever in that which YHWH is actually creating, and will have created then.

Even in this life we forget things and no longer remember them, but they are not wiped out of my memory cells – we just can’t access them. Some things might be remembered long ago – back in 1963, when I was in school in the First Grade, I, uh, never mind - scratch that! :blush:

Blessings.