Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 123

Thread: Will the Jews build a Third Temple?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,539
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Will the Jews build a Third Temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I see. So you think the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church are all wrong, and ForHisglory is right?
    I think the Reformers didn't deal with the view the Catholics had.
    Luther for one was anti-semitic, and the narrative in this theology is based off that.

    Of course it was. That's why the priesthood, the altar, and the sacrifices!
    Nope. Perhaps you should read Hebrews again.
    The Law of Moses NEVER was an atonement of sin.
    May be ask Fenris his perspective for what a Jew understands.

    No, he has always been the only *final* atonement for sin.
    Nope. He has ALWAYS been the ONLY atonement for sin.

    The Law provided *temporary* atonement for sin. The blood of bulls and goats could never take away sins *permanently.*
    What is "temporary" atonement? It sounds very clever. You mean it lasts for a day? Look I have no sin for a day?

    I would if you had any argument at all.
    Perhaps Acts 18:18 might help you start thinking. However you simply buy into anything from Post-Nicene and later.

    I've answered this before, but I'll indulge you. Paul kept the Law to act in a respectful way towards the Jews, who believed they were still under the Law, and found their cultural practices a token of respect for their God. Paul did *not* keep the Law because he felt he actually achieved anything from the Lord other than to secure a platform among the Jews to evangelize them.
    So Paul chose to take a vow in Acts 18 as a charade for the Jews. The apostles in Jerusalem wanted to keep up the charade and did the same themselves as well as getting Paul to go along with it.
    Paul did NOT argue that Jews could ignore the Law, he only argued for Gentiles, which they affirmed in Acts 21.

    It was under the OT covenant. But that covenant is past.
    Not past yet.

    The universal Law of God remains, but not under the covenant of Moses.
    The Universal Law has ALWAYS been universal and the Law of Moses is but a particular codification of that Law given to the Jews.

    Nope. This is false doctrine. Paul unequivocally said the Law of Moses as a covenant is passé.
    No he didn't. It is noted that it is passing and will pass. He also noted that the New supersedes it, and therefore when the New is received so the Old is gone for that individual.
    However until Israel accepts Jesus and His New Covenant, they remain under the Old.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,516

    Re: Will the Jews build a Third Temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    However until Israel accepts Jesus and His New Covenant, they remain under the Old.
    Individuals accept Jesus and His New Covenant, not governments or kingdoms.

    Jesus' offer was indiivually; one by one, by the cross; and it was made avaialble to all the house of Israel as well as the gentiles at the time of the cross.

    Great multitudes of Jews have and continue to accept Jesus and His New Covenant. It is the only present Covenant.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,079

    Re: Will the Jews build a Third Temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    I think the Reformers didn't deal with the view the Catholics had.
    Luther for one was anti-semitic, and the narrative in this theology is based off that.
    Luther was not anti-Semitic in the modern sense. Theologically, he saw Judaism as a corrupted religion, yes. Many of the Church Fathers felt the same way. So did Paul.

    It may be argued that Luther's tone became "anti-Semitic" in, for example, "Against the Jews and their Lies." I would agree with that. But Luther was not actually anti-Semitic in anything more than rhetoric. For example, he did not directly incite persecution against the Jews in his time, in terms of causing violence to be done against the Jewish People. He was misled into believing the Jews were overtly undermining Christianity in Christian countries. Indeed, if the Jews were doing this, it would not be entirely wrong to say some of the things that he did. However, his style of rhetoric used exaggeration.

    But you're using a personal attack on Luther to circumvent this argument. My view was that Catholicism and Protestantism had a particular theological position, and ForHisglory is an island all to himself! Enjoy peace and solitude brother! You can attack other Christians all you want, but you're in no position to disturb them.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nope. Perhaps you should read Hebrews again.
    The Law of Moses NEVER was an atonement of sin.
    May be ask Fenris his perspective for what a Jew understands.
    So now you want to divert to a nonChristian's pov? The Law of Moses plainly provided atonement for sins! I should think that's clear enough simply by reading about "atonement" in the Law?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nope. He has ALWAYS been the ONLY atonement for sin.
    Again, you're playing semantic games. I've already explained that atonement for sin under the Law was temporary and incomplete. Christ's atonement for sin was both complete and final. And it *replaced,* and rendered obsolete, the atoning rituals under the Law of Moses.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    What is "temporary" atonement? It sounds very clever. You mean it lasts for a day? Look I have no sin for a day?
    You ask me to re-read Hebrews, and you don't even know what is in Hebrews yourself?

    Heb 9.8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning. 9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper...
    12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption...
    13 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these...
    10.11 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. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.


    When the author of Hebrews argues that sacrifices under the Law of Moses did not "take away sins," and did not "cleanse the conscience of the worshiper," it was not saying they were worthless offerings! No, the author was only saying that these were temporary offerings until the atonement could be made complete and final. The offerings under the Law were good only as a mirror image of the eternal offering from heaven. But to say they failed, in their purpose, to temporarily cleanse from sin goes against what the stated purpose was of these OT offerings!

    Again, read 9.13. These sacrifices were necessary for purification of these ceremonial objects. They did purify sin-laced activities. However, the author is only arguing that the removal of sin was limited, and could not *permanently* remove the stain of sin! The sacrifices under the Law had to be made repeatedly because they were only good for the moment. This proved that they could not *permanently* remove sin--only for the time being. But that they did remove sin is quite apparent. Otherwise, they would not have been offered at all!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Perhaps Acts 18:18 might help you start thinking. However you simply buy into anything from Post-Nicene and later.
    Start me thinking? I've already addressed that, indirectly. And I've certainly addressed it here on this forum in the past! Paul made vows to God that were perhaps very real, in his personal relationship with God. But doing it under ritual ceremony of the Law was done out of respect for an outmoded religion that Paul knew very well. He stated, clearly, that his object was to show respect for Jewish culture in order to win them for Christ. It was *not* to give validity to the Law of Moses! "Become as a Jew so as to win the Jews."

    Paul's vow may have been real. But he was not indicating he needed purification under Jewish rituals at all--he was only showing proper respect for Jewish culture in using them. It would be like having a Christmas tree at Christmas time. It does not invalidate proper love for God and proper appreciation for the birth of Christ. But neither does it sanction a religious ceremony as mandated by a particular church teaching!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So Paul chose to take a vow in Acts 18 as a charade for the Jews. The apostles in Jerusalem wanted to keep up the charade and did the same themselves as well as getting Paul to go along with it.
    Paul did NOT argue that Jews could ignore the Law, he only argued for Gentiles, which they affirmed in Acts 21.
    That is false doctrine. Paul argued that the Law was outmoded. And Hebrews made that abundantly clear. If the offerings made under the Law could not clear the conscience, and Christ's sacrifice did accomplish that, then it would be absurd to return to offerings made under the Law once Christ had already died for all sin!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Not past yet.

    The Universal Law has ALWAYS been universal and the Law of Moses is but a particular codification of that Law given to the Jews.
    Yes, the Law of Moses was--past tense--a codification of God's Law under special circumstances. That time has past. It was a temporary covenant, designed to lead to Christ's eternal covenant. It was bound up in an age of sin. But once sin had been taken care of, there was no longer any need to deal with sin, in the redemptive sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    No he didn't. It is noted that it is passing and will pass. He also noted that the New supersedes it, and therefore when the New is received so the Old is gone for that individual.
    However until Israel accepts Jesus and His New Covenant, they remain under the Old.
    When the letter of Hebrews spoke of the gradual disappearance of the Law, it was speaking not of the validity of the Law, but rather, of the gradual departure of the *infrastructure* of the Law. The temple worship continued, illegitimately, by the Jewish People. That didn't end until the temple was destroyed in 70 AD.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,539
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Will the Jews build a Third Temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Luther was not anti-Semitic in the modern sense. Theologically, he saw Judaism as a corrupted religion, yes. Many of the Church Fathers felt the same way. So did Paul.

    It may be argued that Luther's tone became "anti-Semitic" in, for example, "Against the Jews and their Lies." I would agree with that. But Luther was not actually anti-Semitic in anything more than rhetoric. For example, he did not directly incite persecution against the Jews in his time, in terms of causing violence to be done against the Jewish People. He was misled into believing the Jews were overtly undermining Christianity in Christian countries. Indeed, if the Jews were doing this, it would not be entirely wrong to say some of the things that he did. However, his style of rhetoric used exaggeration.

    But you're using a personal attack on Luther to circumvent this argument. My view was that Catholicism and Protestantism had a particular theological position, and ForHisglory is an island all to himself! Enjoy peace and solitude brother! You can attack other Christians all you want, but you're in no position to disturb them.
    He was anti-semitic in a medieval sense.
    I am simply highlighting that from the time of the Post-Nicene Fathers, Christian Theology has been anti-semitic and this remains true in the claims such as Judaism is a corrupt religion.
    Judaism is not a corrupt religion, but it had and has corrupt practitioners.
    Paul noted this.

    So now you want to divert to a nonChristian's pov? The Law of Moses plainly provided atonement for sins! I should think that's clear enough simply by reading about "atonement" in the Law?
    Nope the Law of Moses did NOT provide atonement for sins. I highlighted you should read Hebrews and you will see that the writer of Hebrews noted this FACT.
    Paul made a similar statement in Romans:
    Rom 3:20* For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight

    As you don't accept what scripture plainly teaches - thus ignoring sola scriptura, but lay claim to the ECFs and tradition, I was giving you another tradition to compare against That is what a Jew understands about such things.

    Again, you're playing semantic games. I've already explained that atonement for sin under the Law was temporary and incomplete. Christ's atonement for sin was both complete and final. And it *replaced,* and rendered obsolete, the atoning rituals under the Law of Moses.
    If it is temporary and incomplete then it is NOT atonement. Atonement is neither temporary nor incomplete. Either the price is paid or it is not.

    You ask me to re-read Hebrews, and you don't even know what is in Hebrews yourself?

    Heb 9.8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning. 9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper...
    12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption...
    13 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these...
    10.11 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. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.


    When the author of Hebrews argues that sacrifices under the Law of Moses did not "take away sins," and did not "cleanse the conscience of the worshiper," it was not saying they were worthless offerings! No, the author was only saying that these were temporary offerings until the atonement could be made complete and final. The offerings under the Law were good only as a mirror image of the eternal offering from heaven. But to say they failed, in their purpose, to temporarily cleanse from sin goes against what the stated purpose was of these OT offerings!
    I agree he was not saying they were worthless offerings. However he was also saying the OPPOSITE of what you claim, that they were an atonement. He did NOT say they were temporary and stated they did not clear the conscience.

    Again, read 9.13. These sacrifices were necessary for purification of these ceremonial objects. They did purify sin-laced activities. However, the author is only arguing that the removal of sin was limited, and could not *permanently* remove the stain of sin! The sacrifices under the Law had to be made repeatedly because they were only good for the moment. This proved that they could not *permanently* remove sin--only for the time being. But that they did remove sin is quite apparent. Otherwise, they would not have been offered at all!
    Purification is NOT atonement. You wash to make yourself clean, but it does not change who you are. Atonement means a change. Purification was NOT about the removal of sins, but about being covered in the blood in prophetic reference to the blood of Jesus.

    Start me thinking? I've already addressed that, indirectly. And I've certainly addressed it here on this forum in the past! Paul made vows to God that were perhaps very real, in his personal relationship with God. But doing it under ritual ceremony of the Law was done out of respect for an outmoded religion that Paul knew very well. He stated, clearly, that his object was to show respect for Jewish culture in order to win them for Christ. It was *not* to give validity to the Law of Moses! "Become as a Jew so as to win the Jews."
    So Paul is in Cenchreae in Acts 18:18 when he made his vow and this was NOT for the Jews. It was not done out of some weird kind of respect which misleads. No Paul did it as a valid expression of what he could do.

    Paul's vow may have been real. But he was not indicating he needed purification under Jewish rituals at all--he was only showing proper respect for Jewish culture in using them. It would be like having a Christmas tree at Christmas time. It does not invalidate proper love for God and proper appreciation for the birth of Christ. But neither does it sanction a religious ceremony as mandated by a particular church teaching!
    What was the taking of the vow for? We aren't told. However we are told Paul chose to do so without any prompting or leading or for the Jews. Moreover he saw that this method of taking a vow was entirely valid.
    Are you arguing that Paul was sinning by making a vow? I don't think you are, yet you choose to invalidate his vow and make it all just pretend.

    That is false doctrine. Paul argued that the Law was outmoded. And Hebrews made that abundantly clear. If the offerings made under the Law could not clear the conscience, and Christ's sacrifice did accomplish that, then it would be absurd to return to offerings made under the Law once Christ had already died for all sin!
    It isn't a false doctrine. Paul himself stated this in his defence:
    Act 24:14* But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets,*
    Act 24:15* having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.*
    Act 24:16* So I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man.*
    Act 24:17* Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings.*
    Act 24:18* While I was doing this, they found me purified in the temple, without any crowd or tumult.

    Paul calls himself purified. You confuse what is true for Gentiles and what is true for Jews.
    As for Hebrews it does NOT argue that offerings were worthless. It stated that it does not provide the remission for sins. However offerings and sacrifice is not only about sins.

    Yes, the Law of Moses was--past tense--a codification of God's Law under special circumstances. That time has past. It was a temporary covenant, designed to lead to Christ's eternal covenant. It was bound up in an age of sin. But once sin had been taken care of, there was no longer any need to deal with sin, in the redemptive sense.
    Scripture does NOT call it a temporary covenant.

    When the letter of Hebrews spoke of the gradual disappearance of the Law, it was speaking not of the validity of the Law, but rather, of the gradual departure of the *infrastructure* of the Law. The temple worship continued, illegitimately, by the Jewish People. That didn't end until the temple was destroyed in 70 AD.
    The temple worship was NOT illegitimate. They are of one flock and we are of another. In time we will be of one sheepfold.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    4,510
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Will the Jews build a Third Temple?

    How is allowing the apostles to go and make sacrifices (which you have as abominations) somehow become a time period to save people.
    I'll let the past history prove the truth

    It is sin sacrifices which are abominations the other sacrifices are just not needed. Paul did some things like circumcise Timothy for acceptance

    It has nothing to do with sin sacrifices, and everything to do with the people of Israel.
    It is both so do you think that sin sacrifices are needed and acceptable to God?

    How do you think Jesus feels when sin sacrifices were done?

    So you no longer bring a sacrifice of praise? You don;t take up your cross daily?
    Jesus fulfilled ALL that He planned to fulfill at the cross.
    This didn't include things like reigning on earth afterwards as a resurrected King.
    What is sacrifice meant to be? That is the heart of the question
    Your just playing with words here again you know what I mean. Doing things like sacrificing your time and money for God are not what we are talking about.

    We feel different about Jesus reigning but that is a whole different topic

    Rev 11:1* Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told, “Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there,*
    Rev 11:2* but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months.*
    Rev 11:3* And I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.”

    Notice the temple and the two witnesses are in the same part of the vision.

    Rev 11:8* and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city
    Notice where their bodies will lie? Which city is this?
    So no verses show them in the temple. I don't see the 2W as literal people but the law and the prophets which pointed to Jesus as Abraham said below

    Luke 19:27-31
    27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

    29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

    30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

    31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

    Jesus did rise from the dead and as He predicted they still didn't believe the Jews won't get any special treatment

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,079

    Re: Will the Jews build a Third Temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    He was anti-semitic in a medieval sense.
    I am simply highlighting that from the time of the Post-Nicene Fathers, Christian Theology has been anti-semitic and this remains true in the claims such as Judaism is a corrupt religion.
    Judaism is not a corrupt religion, but it had and has corrupt practitioners.
    Paul noted this.
    I'm not saying Judaism is *morally* corrupt. I'm saying that from the standpoint of NT theology, God's covenant system with Israel has been corrupted. This is not something that Jews corrupt today. They practice a religion they have inherited. I wouldn't say Mormonism corrupted today by the people who practice it, who were raised up in it. But I would say that Mormonism is a corrupt form of religion. Judaism is also, in this respect, a corrupt form of religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nope the Law of Moses did NOT provide atonement for sins. I highlighted you should read Hebrews and you will see that the writer of Hebrews noted this FACT.
    Paul made a similar statement in Romans:
    Rom 3:20* For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight
    Wrong, the Law did atone for sins.

    Exo 29.36 Sacrifice a bull each day as a sin offering to make atonement.

    What about this don't you understand?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    As you don't accept what scripture plainly teaches - thus ignoring sola scriptura, but lay claim to the ECFs and tradition, I was giving you another tradition to compare against That is what a Jew understands about such things.
    You don't believe Exo 29.36.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    If it is temporary and incomplete then it is NOT atonement. Atonement is neither temporary nor incomplete. Either the price is paid or it is not.
    That's false. Atonement was made *temporarily* under the Law of Moses. That's why the sacrifices had to be repeated.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I agree he was not saying they were worthless offerings. However he was also saying the OPPOSITE of what you claim, that they were an atonement. He did NOT say they were temporary and stated they did not clear the conscience.
    You don't believe Exo 29.36.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Purification is NOT atonement. You wash to make yourself clean, but it does not change who you are. Atonement means a change. Purification was NOT about the removal of sins, but about being covered in the blood in prophetic reference to the blood of Jesus.
    Wrong. Atonement made satisfaction for sins. In effect it purified the worshiper. Below, it purified the altar...

    Exo 29.36 Purify the altar by making atonement for it.

    You apparently don't believe this.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So Paul is in Cenchreae in Acts 18:18 when he made his vow and this was NOT for the Jews. It was not done out of some weird kind of respect which misleads. No Paul did it as a valid expression of what he could do.
    I told you I thought the vow itself was valid. His ritual observance was out of respect for Jewish culture, to become "like the Jews to win the Jews."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    What was the taking of the vow for? We aren't told. However we are told Paul chose to do so without any prompting or leading or for the Jews. Moreover he saw that this method of taking a vow was entirely valid.
    Are you arguing that Paul was sinning by making a vow? I don't think you are, yet you choose to invalidate his vow and make it all just pretend.
    Read what I said about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It isn't a false doctrine. Paul himself stated this in his defence:
    Act 24:14* But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets,*
    Act 24:15* having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.*
    Act 24:16* So I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man.*
    Act 24:17* Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings.*
    Act 24:18* While I was doing this, they found me purified in the temple, without any crowd or tumult.

    Paul calls himself purified. You confuse what is true for Gentiles and what is true for Jews.
    As for Hebrews it does NOT argue that offerings were worthless. It stated that it does not provide the remission for sins. However offerings and sacrifice is not only about sins.
    I did not say offerings were worthless under the Law. I'm saying they are worthless under NT law. The Law and its sacrifices did provide for the remission of sins. It just provided a temporary cover for sin until final atonement was made by Christ. I never said offerings and sacrifices were only about sins.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Scripture does NOT call it a temporary covenant.
    That is the implication when we are told, in Hebrews, that the New Covenant supplanted the Old Covenant. The OT, by definition. was temporary. The New Covenant is eternal.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    The temple worship was NOT illegitimate. They are of one flock and we are of another. In time we will be of one sheepfold.
    False doctrine, brother. Nobody, including Israel, is under the Law of Moses. Period.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,539
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Will the Jews build a Third Temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I'm not saying Judaism is *morally* corrupt. I'm saying that from the standpoint of NT theology, God's covenant system with Israel has been corrupted. This is not something that Jews corrupt today. They practice a religion they have inherited. I wouldn't say Mormonism corrupted today by the people who practice it, who were raised up in it. But I would say that Mormonism is a corrupt form of religion. Judaism is also, in this respect, a corrupt form of religion.
    Not from the standpoint of the apostles. God's Covenant has not been corrupted. The Jews may not keep it, but that doesn't make the Covenant itself corrupt, whcih is what you are actually claiming. Judaism is not a corrupt form of religion unlike Mormonism.

    Wrong, the Law did atone for sins.
    Exo 29.36 Sacrifice a bull each day as a sin offering to make atonement.

    What about this don't you understand?
    You don't believe Exo 29.36.
    That's false. Atonement was made *temporarily* under the Law of Moses. That's why the sacrifices had to be repeated.
    You don't believe Exo 29.36.
    Wrong. Atonement made satisfaction for sins. In effect it purified the worshiper. Below, it purified the altar...
    Exo 29.36 Purify the altar by making atonement for it.
    You apparently don't believe this.
    Do you know what the Hebrew word used here is?
    H3722
    כּפר
    kâphar
    BDB Definition:
    1) to cover, purge, make an atonement, make reconciliation, cover over with pitch

    It is to cover.
    Read Genesis 3:
    Gen 3:7* Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.
    ...
    Gen 3:10* And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.”*
    ...
    Gen 3:21* And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.

    What we have is a covering, not a removal.

    I told you I thought the vow itself was valid. His ritual observance was out of respect for Jewish culture, to become "like the Jews to win the Jews."
    Cenchreae is a port in Greece by Corinth. Paul was NOT making a vow for any Jews. He was in the land of the Gentiles.

    I did not say offerings were worthless under the Law. I'm saying they are worthless under NT law. The Law and its sacrifices did provide for the remission of sins. It just provided a temporary cover for sin until final atonement was made by Christ. I never said offerings and sacrifices were only about sins.
    So now there is NT Law? Are you living under NT Law?
    The Law did NOT provide for the remission of sins. It covered them over, but the sin itself remained and would need be there at judgement.

    That is the implication when we are told, in Hebrews, that the New Covenant supplanted the Old Covenant. The OT, by definition. was temporary. The New Covenant is eternal.
    Nope, that is NOT the implication.
    The Covenant made with Moses is not forever, however that made with Abraham Isaac and Jacob is.
    The OC will pass away, but has not yet, and will not until Jesus has brought the 70 weeks to an end and brought things t fruition at His return.

    False doctrine, brother. Nobody, including Israel, is under the Law of Moses. Period.
    You can claim what you like, but scripture doesn't support you.
    Israel is under the Law of Moses.

  8. #68

    Re: Will the Jews build a Third Temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by Radagast View Post
    No, it doesn't. Jesus will not sit in a physical temple. See the Epistle to the Hebrews.

    Who wrote Hebrews? We know who Ezekiel is. See chapters 40-48.

    Matthew 17:12a: But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased.

    Past tense.
    Again, you select only scriptures you want to believe while rejecting others. This is why we have 30,000 denominations and only one Christ. Pride and unbelief corrupt doctrine.
    Further, you apparently do not realize God is eternal and consistently speaks about the future in the past or present tense.

  9. #69

    Re: Will the Jews build a Third Temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnE View Post
    Who wrote Hebrews?
    If you reject the New Testament, there's no point conversing.

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnE View Post
    Again, you select only scriptures you want to believe while rejecting others.
    No, I don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnE View Post
    Pride and unbelief corrupt doctrine.
    They sure do.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,079

    Re: Will the Jews build a Third Temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Not from the standpoint of the apostles. God's Covenant has not been corrupted. The Jews may not keep it, but that doesn't make the Covenant itself corrupt, whcih is what you are actually claiming. Judaism is not a corrupt form of religion unlike Mormonism.
    Jesus said it was. Jesus said Judaism had been corrupted by the Jewish leaders. Read Matthew 23. The things they taught from the Law was accurate. But they added much to the Law that did not belong to the Law, and they did not themselves display how the Law was supposed to be followed.

    Matt 23.15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Do you know what the Hebrew word used here is?
    H3722
    כּפר
    kâphar
    BDB Definition:
    1) to cover, purge, make an atonement, make reconciliation, cover over with pitch

    It is to cover.
    Read Genesis 3:
    Gen 3:7* Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.
    ...
    Gen 3:10* And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.”*
    ...
    Gen 3:21* And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.

    What we have is a covering, not a removal.
    So what? My point remains. The Law atoned for sins. It provided an atonement, or "covering," for sin! Do you really think that by explaining what an "atonement" is you are making a point? The point is that under the Law atonement for sin was made. That was my point!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Cenchreae is a port in Greece by Corinth. Paul was NOT making a vow for any Jews. He was in the land of the Gentiles.
    Sorry, that is why Paul himself indicated he did this--it was in fact for the Jews.

    Acts 16.Paul came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was Jewish and a believer but whose father was a Greek. 2 The believers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3 Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

    Paul had been arguing with Jews about Christ. He took his vow under ritual requirements of the Law, knowing he would continue to argue with Jews about Christ. And he did this, knowing he would be better heard by acting like a typical Jew.

    Acts 18.18 Paul stayed on in Corinth for some time. Then he left the brothers and sisters and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. Before he sailed, he had his hair cut off at Cenchreae because of a vow he had taken. 19 They arrived at Ephesus, where Paul left Priscilla and Aquila. He himself went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews.

    Here is Paul's reasoning for observing the Law, without considering it a genuine requirement under that covenant...

    1 Cor 9.To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So now there is NT Law? Are you living under NT Law?
    The Law did NOT provide for the remission of sins. It covered them over, but the sin itself remained and would need be there at judgement.
    You are diverting. The Law provided sacrifices that covered for sin, yes. It was called an "atonement for sin!" That is the point. By calling it a "covering" you are not changing the point, that the Law provided a temporary cover for sin until Christ could provide a permanent solution for sin.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nope, that is NOT the implication.
    The Covenant made with Moses is not forever, however that made with Abraham Isaac and Jacob is.
    The OC will pass away, but has not yet, and will not until Jesus has brought the 70 weeks to an end and brought things t fruition at His return.
    The OC ended at the cross. Jesus took the full punishment for sin. Therefore, the judgment against sin ended at the cross. Whoever is in Christ has no judgment against him for sin. The punishment has already been absorbed by Christ.

    To go back to animal sacrifices would be to turn the clock back to a time before Christ paid for our sins. But the clock can't be turned back. He has already paid for the sins of the whole world. Those who are in Christ are free. Those who reject Christ do not go back to the Old Covenant. That Covenant failed at the cross, because man had always failed. Man had already been proven a sinner. Man had already been proven incapable of providing atonement for his own sin. The Law was a temporary burden to bear until Jesus came who could truly provide a final atonement for sin, to replace a temporary atonement for sin.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You can claim what you like, but scripture doesn't support you.
    Israel is under the Law of Moses.
    There is no Scripture supporting that. The Law condemned man. Yet it provided temporary cover for Israel's sin, until Christ came. Christ has already come. The Law only stands as a testimony to human failure apart from Christ.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,539
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Will the Jews build a Third Temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Jesus said it was. Jesus said Judaism had been corrupted by the Jewish leaders. Read Matthew 23. The things they taught from the Law was accurate. But they added much to the Law that did not belong to the Law, and they did not themselves display how the Law was supposed to be followed.

    Matt 23.15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.
    The teachers of the Law and Pharisees are corrupt, but that doesn't make the Covenant or Judaism corrupt.
    Just as you can have false teachers in a church, this does not make Christianity corrupt.

    So what? My point remains. The Law atoned for sins. It provided an atonement, or "covering," for sin! Do you really think that by explaining what an "atonement" is you are making a point? The point is that under the Law atonement for sin was made. That was my point!
    OK, the difference is that under the Law, the covering is NOT forgiveness of sins, nor does it give salvation, and making a sacrifice does NOT provide that.
    This is why David noted this in Psalm 51.
    Psa 51:16* For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering.*
    Psa 51:17* The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.*
    Psa 51:18* Do good to Zion in your good pleasure; build up the walls of Jerusalem;*
    Psa 51:19* then will you delight in right sacrifices, in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings; then bulls will be offered on your altar.*

    Here David recognises that sacrifice will not make his heart clean or restore him to God. Once restored to God, but God accepting his broken and contrite spirit and forgiving him, then allows David to make sacrifices again.
    Basically your argument about sacrifices is BACKWARDS to what God says about it.

    Sorry, that is why Paul himself indicated he did this--it was in fact for the Jews.
    Nope Acts 18 is NOT for a SINGLE Jew. To claim it is sheer nonsense.

    Acts 16.Paul came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was Jewish and a believer but whose father was a Greek. 2 The believers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3 Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
    Paul had been arguing with Jews about Christ. He took his vow under ritual requirements of the Law, knowing he would continue to argue with Jews about Christ. And he did this, knowing he would be better heard by acting like a typical Jew.
    Now this you can argue was for the Jews. Yet note this was ONLY necessary for Timothy as one who had a Gentile Father, so Paul has him circumcised to be a Jew.

    Acts 18.18 Paul stayed on in Corinth for some time. Then he left the brothers and sisters and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. Before he sailed, he had his hair cut off at Cenchreae because of a vow he had taken. 19 They arrived at Ephesus, where Paul left Priscilla and Aquila. He himself went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews.

    Here is Paul's reasoning for observing the Law, without considering it a genuine requirement under that covenant...

    1 Cor 9.To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
    Paul made a vow in Corinth. He did not make that vow for going to Ephesus. It was a vow he chose to make without ANY reference to Jews.

    You are diverting. The Law provided sacrifices that covered for sin, yes. It was called an "atonement for sin!" That is the point. By calling it a "covering" you are not changing the point, that the Law provided a temporary cover for sin until Christ could provide a permanent solution for sin.
    I follow your reasoning. I think you aren't following mine. A cover is NOT forgiveness NOR removal of sin. It does NOT make one right with God. Rather IF someone is right with God then they can make a sacrifice.

    The OC ended at the cross. Jesus took the full punishment for sin. Therefore, the judgment against sin ended at the cross. Whoever is in Christ has no judgment against him for sin. The punishment has already been absorbed by Christ.

    To go back to animal sacrifices would be to turn the clock back to a time before Christ paid for our sins. But the clock can't be turned back. He has already paid for the sins of the whole world. Those who are in Christ are free. Those who reject Christ do not go back to the Old Covenant. That Covenant failed at the cross, because man had always failed. Man had already been proven a sinner. Man had already been proven incapable of providing atonement for his own sin. The Law was a temporary burden to bear until Jesus came who could truly provide a final atonement for sin, to replace a temporary atonement for sin.
    Firstly the OC didn't end at the cross as shown by Paul and the apostles in their walk.
    Secondly animal sacrifices NEVER paid for our sin, so it is not a turning back of the clock, because it was NEVER part of the clock.

    There is no Scripture supporting that. The Law condemned man. Yet it provided temporary cover for Israel's sin, until Christ came. Christ has already come. The Law only stands as a testimony to human failure apart from Christ.
    Actually ALL scripture says that. It is for you to provide scripture which shows it has DEFINITIVELY ended.
    The most you have is that it is passing, which I agree with you on.
    The Law condemned Man, and continues to condemn Man.
    It condemned Man from Adam (before the Law was given to Moses) and continues until the Judgement.
    Now if you want to say that the Law of Moses condemned the Jews, then that is a slightly different statement, and yet also true within the bounds of the Law.
    As Paul noted, when he lived by faith he realised he is no longer under the Law, but the Jews who do NOT live by faith in contrast REMAIN under the Law. Your quote from 1 Cor 9:20 has Paul making this EXPLICIT point, that Jews are UNDER the Law. Yet you try to argue as if they are NOT under the Law, and so are disagreeing with Paul's point and the reason why he became as a Jew (though he was in fact a Jew).

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,079

    Re: Will the Jews build a Third Temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    The teachers of the Law and Pharisees are corrupt, but that doesn't make the Covenant or Judaism corrupt.
    Just as you can have false teachers in a church, this does not make Christianity corrupt.
    Sure it does. Lots of Christian cults have developed in history. For example, we have Mormonism today. Some may call it a form of Christianity, legitimately. But it is a *corrupt* form of Christianity.

    Rabbinic Judaism also is a corrupt form of original Judaism. It is based on an explicit rejection of Christianity. And this is clearly a corrupted religion, which God originally designed to embrace Christianity. Not only does it reject Christianity but it explicitly rejects the message of God's destruction of the temple, which was to end Jewish practice under the Law of Moses. It teaches that practice of the Law is to continue, without pursuing final redemption in Christ.

    But this may be evolving into a semantics battle. And I'm not interested in this.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    OK, the difference is that under the Law, the covering is NOT forgiveness of sins, nor does it give salvation, and making a sacrifice does NOT provide that.
    It depends on what you mean by "salvation." Israel was certainly saved from hostile enemies under the Law, when they obeyed God's specific requirements under the Law.

    But if we're talking about Christian salvation, which I think you are, then no--the Law was never designed to provide Christian salvation. Only Christ could provide that. And that's why remaining under the Law is so wrong, because it excludes Christ in salvation.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    This is why David noted this in Psalm 51.
    Psa 51:16* For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering.*
    Psa 51:17* The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.*
    Psa 51:18* Do good to Zion in your good pleasure; build up the walls of Jerusalem;*
    Psa 51:19* then will you delight in right sacrifices, in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings; then bulls will be offered on your altar.*

    Here David recognises that sacrifice will not make his heart clean or restore him to God. Once restored to God, but God accepting his broken and contrite spirit and forgiving him, then allows David to make sacrifices again.
    Basically your argument about sacrifices is BACKWARDS to what God says about it.
    Not at all. I only repeated what the Scriptures say, that under the Law atonement was made for sin, which you denied. You therefore reject what the Bible says.

    It isn't "backwards" for me to say that the Law doesn't achieve Christian salvation and still provided atonement for sin. What I clearly indicated was that atonement for sin under the Law was "temporary" until Christ provided final salvation.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nope Acts 18 is NOT for a SINGLE Jew. To claim it is sheer nonsense.
    The only "nonsense" I see is your failure to see Paul's intent. He was busy trying to evangelize his fellow Jews. He didn't want to put obstacles in their way, by appearing to be a non-observant Jew. It was easier to gain access to brother Jews if he appeared in the guise of a respectful observant Jew. After all, the passage I quoted clearly stated that Paul did not consider himself under the Law when he was doing this.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Now this you can argue was for the Jews. Yet note this was ONLY necessary for Timothy as one who had a Gentile Father, so Paul has him circumcised to be a Jew.
    I can argue that both circumcision and vow-making, under legal prescription, were for Jews. To argue otherwise is for you an argument from silence. Where, for example, does Paul ever say he kept the requirements of the Law because he felt he was still under the Law? On the other hand, he specifically indicated he was not under the Law, and should not be under the Law. He only did this to gain an ear from those in other cultures, to show proper respect for their customs. As a former Jew himself, he wanted to show what his background was, in order to remain relevant within that culture.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Paul made a vow in Corinth. He did not make that vow for going to Ephesus. It was a vow he chose to make without ANY reference to Jews.
    I gave you the Scriptures. You can accept or reject.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I follow your reasoning. I think you aren't following mine. A cover is NOT forgiveness NOR removal of sin. It does NOT make one right with God. Rather IF someone is right with God then they can make a sacrifice.
    I followed your logic from the beginning--that's why I used the language of a *temporary covenant* from the beginning. This was a temporary covering for sin, but a valid one. Otherwise, God would've destroyed Israel from the start of their practice of the Law.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Firstly the OC didn't end at the cross as shown by Paul and the apostles in their walk.
    Secondly animal sacrifices NEVER paid for our sin, so it is not a turning back of the clock, because it was NEVER part of the clock.
    We disagree. Sacrifices paid *temporarily* for sin...until the next sin. It never cleansed completely from sin. But it accomplished its purpose, which was to allow God to pass over these sins until final atonement had been made by Christ.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually ALL scripture says that. It is for you to provide scripture which shows it has DEFINITIVELY ended.
    The most you have is that it is passing, which I agree with you on.
    I have *not* said the Law is passing. It passed, period. It passed at the cross, and that's what I said. As for the passage in Hebrews that talked about the process of the temple infrastructure passing, I would agree with that. Even though the covenant of Law had ended at the cross, the temple still stood until 70 AD. The infrastructure of the Law was still in the process of passing in the time the author of Hebrews wrote his letter.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    The Law condemned Man, and continues to condemn Man.
    It condemned Man from Adam (before the Law was given to Moses) and continues until the Judgement.
    Now if you want to say that the Law of Moses condemned the Jews, then that is a slightly different statement, and yet also true within the bounds of the Law.
    Paul's theology that the Law condemns Man had to do with the original Fall of Man. Once contaminated by sin, Man had a sin nature, which the Law could never fully erase. However, the Law provided temporary cover for sin until Christ could come and provide final atonement for sin.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    As Paul noted, when he lived by faith he realised he is no longer under the Law, but the Jews who do NOT live by faith in contrast REMAIN under the Law.
    False doctrine! Christ is the only way of salvation, and the only covenant still standing with respect to God's plan for men. The Law served its purpose. Do you really think God still wants a Levitical priesthood? Do you really think He wants the Jews to offer animal sacrifices? If you do, you're way out in Left Field with respect to biblical soteriology. You really need to get back in the boat, brother!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Your quote from 1 Cor 9:20 has Paul making this EXPLICIT point, that Jews are UNDER the Law. Yet you try to argue as if they are NOT under the Law, and so are disagreeing with Paul's point and the reason why he became as a Jew (though he was in fact a Jew).
    The Jews *consider themselves* under the Law. God does not accept their position as such as a legitimate position! It is one thing to say Mormons are practicing the Mormon religion. And it is another thing entirely to say their practice of the Mormon religion is embraced by God! God does not embrace false or corrupted religion. His only religion today is Christianity. Many certainly are under other faiths and laws, including the Law of Moses. But God does not recognize it as legitimate religion. He simply tolerates it.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,539
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Will the Jews build a Third Temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Sure it does. Lots of Christian cults have developed in history. For example, we have Mormonism today. Some may call it a form of Christianity, legitimately. But it is a *corrupt* form of Christianity.

    Rabbinic Judaism also is a corrupt form of original Judaism. It is based on an explicit rejection of Christianity. And this is clearly a corrupted religion, which God originally designed to embrace Christianity. Not only does it reject Christianity but it explicitly rejects the message of God's destruction of the temple, which was to end Jewish practice under the Law of Moses. It teaches that practice of the Law is to continue, without pursuing final redemption in Christ.

    But this may be evolving into a semantics battle. And I'm not interested in this.
    Yes there have been Christian Cults, but NOT ONE Cult makes Christianity corrupt.
    Your argument about Judaism requires the corrupt form to somehow make the original form corrupt, which is simply wrong.

    It depends on what you mean by "salvation." Israel was certainly saved from hostile enemies under the Law, when they obeyed God's specific requirements under the Law.

    But if we're talking about Christian salvation, which I think you are, then no--the Law was never designed to provide Christian salvation. Only Christ could provide that. And that's why remaining under the Law is so wrong, because it excludes Christ in salvation.
    Actually I am not talking about Christian salvation, but simply the salvation that David was looking for with God. It is about relationship with God, and David KNEW that simply having sacrifices would NOT restore that relationship.

    Not at all. I only repeated what the Scriptures say, that under the Law atonement was made for sin, which you denied. You therefore reject what the Bible says.

    It isn't "backwards" for me to say that the Law doesn't achieve Christian salvation and still provided atonement for sin. What I clearly indicated was that atonement for sin under the Law was "temporary" until Christ provided final salvation.
    The question is what you understand by atonement. You are making it as a "temporary" removal of sin. I am saying, no it doesn't do that. It is simply a covering.

    The only "nonsense" I see is your failure to see Paul's intent. He was busy trying to evangelize his fellow Jews. He didn't want to put obstacles in their way, by appearing to be a non-observant Jew. It was easier to gain access to brother Jews if he appeared in the guise of a respectful observant Jew. After all, the passage I quoted clearly stated that Paul did not consider himself under the Law when he was doing this.
    Paul was NOT busy in Cenchreae to evangelise his fellow Jews. There wasn't a fellow Jew present.
    So though you can argue from Acts 16 about this (though I would disagree, but at least I can see you have an argument, there is NO argument from Acts 18 as this has ZERO bearing on Jews).

    I can argue that both circumcision and vow-making, under legal prescription, were for Jews. To argue otherwise is for you an argument from silence. Where, for example, does Paul ever say he kept the requirements of the Law because he felt he was still under the Law? On the other hand, he specifically indicated he was not under the Law, and should not be under the Law. He only did this to gain an ear from those in other cultures, to show proper respect for their customs. As a former Jew himself, he wanted to show what his background was, in order to remain relevant within that culture.
    Act 24:14* But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets,*

    Now Paul is not saying he is under the Law, but he is saying that he recognises and is keeping the Law (especially in the matter for which he was arrested.)

    I gave you the Scriptures. You can accept or reject.
    And I showed why your claim should be rejected according to that scripture.

    I followed your logic from the beginning--that's why I used the language of a *temporary covenant* from the beginning. This was a temporary covering for sin, but a valid one. Otherwise, God would've destroyed Israel from the start of their practice of the Law.
    No, God had in place things stated WITHIN the Covenant for when the Covenant was broken. Don't forget the Law of Moses is as much (or more) about the nation, than the individual. It is how the individual is to act WITHIN the society.

    We disagree. Sacrifices paid *temporarily* for sin...until the next sin. It never cleansed completely from sin. But it accomplished its purpose, which was to allow God to pass over these sins until final atonement had been made by Christ.
    Nope, didn't do that. Animal sacrifices did not EVER pay for sin. It simply covered it up. This is why the priests would go in daily as it wasn't until the next sin, but an ongoing need. David understood that you needed to live by faith as did Abraham.

    I have *not* said the Law is passing. It passed, period. It passed at the cross, and that's what I said. As for the passage in Hebrews that talked about the process of the temple infrastructure passing, I would agree with that. Even though the covenant of Law had ended at the cross, the temple still stood until 70 AD. The infrastructure of the Law was still in the process of passing in the time the author of Hebrews wrote his letter.
    I know you didn't say that. I am saying that based on what is written in scripture.
    The covenant of Law did NOT end at the cross. Do you mean the Law of Moses ended at the cross, or the Law of God? Sometimes it helps to be clear what you are meaning.

    Paul's theology that the Law condemns Man had to do with the original Fall of Man. Once contaminated by sin, Man had a sin nature, which the Law could never fully erase. However, the Law provided temporary cover for sin until Christ could come and provide final atonement for sin.
    The Law did NOT provide a temporary cover, and Paul didn't argue this even once. He noted that the wages was death, and that it had reigned until now.

    False doctrine! Christ is the only way of salvation, and the only covenant still standing with respect to God's plan for men. The Law served its purpose. Do you really think God still wants a Levitical priesthood? Do you really think He wants the Jews to offer animal sacrifices? If you do, you're way out in Left Field with respect to biblical soteriology. You really need to get back in the boat, brother!
    I agree that Christ is the ONLY way for salvation. However Abraham, nor David met Jesus, yet I think you agree that they will be in the Kingdom of God. SO how is that brought about?
    As for a priesthood, depends if you accept the OT prophecy or not?
    Zec 14:20* And on that day there shall be inscribed on the bells of the horses, “Holy to the LORD.” And the pots in the house of the LORD shall be as the bowls before the altar.*
    Zec 14:21* And every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be holy to the LORD of hosts, so that all who sacrifice may come and take of them and boil the meat of the sacrifice in them. And there shall no longer be a trader in the house of the LORD of hosts on that day.
    ...
    Isa 66:21* And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the LORD.*
    Isa 66:22* “For as the new heavens and the new earth that I make shall remain before me, says the LORD, so shall your offspring and your name remain.*
    Isa 66:23* From new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me, declares the LORD.

    Of course you could simply claim this is just symbolic.
    I think though that we are a royal priesthood.

    The Jews *consider themselves* under the Law. God does not accept their position as such as a legitimate position! It is one thing to say Mormons are practicing the Mormon religion. And it is another thing entirely to say their practice of the Mormon religion is embraced by God! God does not embrace false or corrupted religion. His only religion today is Christianity. Many certainly are under other faiths and laws, including the Law of Moses. But God does not recognize it as legitimate religion. He simply tolerates it.
    Paul stated they were under the Law, so Paul is legitimising that as a position. You might not, but then you aren't Paul.
    Mormonism is a cult, but the Jews remain a people called by God and who can accept Jesus, or they remain under the Law.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    4,510
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Will the Jews build a Third Temple?

    I think that temples put walls up between God and man

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,079

    Re: Will the Jews build a Third Temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    I think that temples put walls up between God and man
    Interesting statement! Yes, temple walls did in fact separate God and Israel, and Israel from the Gentiles. Now, under the New Covenant, there is no wall between God and Christians. And there are no walls between Jews and Gentiles. Ethnic barriers do not exist in the Church, though they remain differences. Differences do not have to be barriers. Men and women are different, but these differences are not barriers.

    I find no need to predict the building of a new temple. If anything it would support a renewal of OT worship, or perhaps even a temple for Antichrist. I prefer to believe the concept of an OT temple is in the past, and has been buried there. Pictures of a temple in heaven are purely symbolic for me, indicating that their fulfillment is in Christ and in Christianity--not in a physical barrier. Rather, it is a place in which God freely dwells, with no obstacles whatsoever.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. another temple, and Messianic Jews
    By Nihil Obstat in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Apr 18th 2010, 04:42 AM
  2. How should we build our churches?
    By 9Marksfan in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: Sep 7th 2007, 10:04 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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