ANIMAL SACRIFICES to resume FOR US in the future!

[plainguy]

Some of my brothers and sisters need to brush up on history and put the Bible in proper context. How many of you actually know the answers to these questions?:

Who was Ezekiel?
When did he live?
Who was his audience?
What was going on with the Children of Israel at the time?

It's all about proper context. For those who cannot answer the above questions, Ezekiel was born prior to Israel's destruction and banishment to Babylon in the 6th century BC. He was active as a prophet before and during the Babylonian exile. The Book of Ezekiel was written while in captivity. Solomon's temple had been destroyed. Ezekiel was divinely told to speak to the Children of Israel, the following from Ezek 2:

[SUP]3 [/SUP]And He said to me: “Son of man, I am sending you to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against Me; they and their fathers have transgressed against Me to this very day. [SUP]4 [/SUP]For they are impudent and stubborn children. I am sending you to them, and you shall say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God.’ [SUP]5 [/SUP]As for them, whether they hear or whether they refuse—for they are a rebellious house—yet they will know that a prophet has been among them.

Thus the audience of Ezekiel were the exiled Children of Israel living in Babylon in the 6th century BC. He was writing to them and while there are things of edification in there for us, we in the 21st century AD were not the intended audience and I'm pretty certain, we were not on Ezekiel's mind.

So, in Ezek 40-48 when Ezekiel is shown a vision of a future temple, he was told specifically what?

"Declare to the house of Israel everything you see.”

Why should we suppose Ezekiel was to tell those alive in the 6th century BC about a future "millennial" temple some 2,600+ years into their future? What possible relevance would that have to them? Prior to Ezekiel chapter 40, does he declare anything about the 2nd temple, for which construction would actually start in many of their lifetimes? NO!! Wouldn't the 2nd temple be a little more important to them, back then? Of course it would.

So, what is Ezekiel talking about in 40-48? The key lies here in Chapter 43:

[SUP]10 [/SUP]“Son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and let them measure the pattern. [SUP]11 [/SUP]And if they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the temple and its arrangement, its exits and its entrances, its entire design and all its ordinances, all its forms and all its laws. Write it down in their sight, so that they may keep its whole design and all its ordinances, and perform them.

Were they ashamed of their iniquities? This vision was given in the 25th year of their captivity which was to last 70 years. They did not repent as Daniel 9 makes clear. Thus, they never got the massive temple described in Ezek 40-48, instead they were to get a much smaller, less grand temple which would still be the pride of Israel and the envy of the world.

There will be no more animal sacrifices people. God allowed a mosque to be built on the temple mount to prevent it and it has worked for nearly 1,400 years!! They can plan all they want.

Exactly ! ... and great post <two thumbs up>

 

[garee]

Hello Depleted,

Though the scripture you provided here is obviously speaking figuratively of Jesus' body as the temple, we cannot apply the same meaning to every where the word temple appears. The context must determine whether it is speaking symbolically or literally. That said, those scriptures that Nehemiah6 provided are speaking of the literal temple. For there is nothing in the context that would alert the reader to apply a symbolic meaning.

The veil is rent. The time of refomation had come .The temple and its finishing as a parable was used for the time then present.It as a parable announced the gospel of Christ in respect to His
suffering beforehand .

we receive the end of salvation as a work of His faith just as did the old testament saints . Shadows never become the spiritual unseen substance hid in parables .

Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.1Pe 1:9

The glory that should follow.. the graves where open the first resurrection. the last resurrection will be on the last day.The day the new incorruptible, heavens and earth appear .

There will be no bleating of sheep the shadows became sight at the time of refomation. The promise was one demonstration not two or three .The Antichrists that walk after the literal search for another outward demonstration. The veil will not be mended. .

1Samuel 15:14 And Samuel said, What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?

 

[BibleGuy]

So, Hebrews 8:13 says what?

"When he speaks of a new covenant, he makes the first obsolete. Now what is growing obsolete and aging is about to disappear." Hebrews 8:13

You claim it still has not disappeared, but the fact is that it completely disappeared in AD 70, when Jerusalem was raised. The reason it had not disappeared when Hebrews was written, was that they were still sacrificing animals for sin in the Temple. BUT, then it came down. In 70AD! Historical fact!

So, no more animal sacrifices. And here is the CONTEXT of Hebrews 8!

"Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We have such a high priest, one who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the sanctuary and TRUE TABERNACLE, that the Lord, not man, set up" Hebrews 8:1

"But now Jesus has obtained a superior ministry, since the covenant that he mediates is also better and is enacted on better promises.7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, no one would have looked for a second one." Hebrews 8:6-7

Read the whole chapter, and the whole book. You are completely off base in your posts. I tried to post whole chapters, and you didn't respond, Bibleguy, so now just verses, although anyone can read the chapter in any version of the Bible, and find the truth. (Try Biblegateway.com if you want to compare versions! They all say the same thing!)

And so interesting, a "Bibleguy" that claims to believe the Bible, but doesn't actually post it. Just a bunch of addresses, probably all pulled out of context. I was looking to see if he used the KJV, but, apparently he uses no versions, just his own weird opinions, not backed up by the actual verses, just addresses, with the result of not understanding the Bible verses.

Saying you believe the Bible, and missing that we don't need sacrifices anymore? Very strange. So, how many times have you read the whole Bible, from cover to cover? Let me tell you, you will be surprised to find out how you have twisted the bible, when you actually read things in context, and see that the old covenant has been fulfilled, and there is no need for sacrifices in a newly rebuilt temple. The only high priest we need is Jesus, in the heavenly sanctuary.

"Therefore since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest incapable of sympathizing with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in every way just as we are, yet without sin. 16 Therefore let us confidently approach the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace whenever we need help." Hebrews 4:14-16

Please comment on the verses, don't just brag on about believing the Bible, the entire Bible. You don't use the Bible at all in your posts. You counter with addresses. I would show you the Greek or Hebrew say, but there is no need! Any English version says it all, if you read it in context. In other words, all the verses, not just a few you read on a website and are throwing around without any knowledge or sense of who Jesus is, what he came to do, and where he is now! On the throne, King of Kings and Lord of Lords!

"to obey this command without fault or failure until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ 15 —whose appearing the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, will reveal at the right time. 16 He alone possesses immortality and lives in unapproachable light, whom no human has ever seen or is able to see. To him be honour and eternal power! Amen." 1 Tim. 7:14-16

Hello,

Thanks for writing.

You wrote: "The reason it had not disappeared when Hebrews was written, was that they were still sacrificing animals for sin in the Temple. BUT, then it came down. In 70AD! Historical fact!"

My response: Invalid reasoning. The destruction of the temple (AD 70) is not proof that the Old Covenant is permanently disappeared. Rather, it is merely proof that it became temporarily impossible to obey 100% of the Torah of the Old Covenant.

Did the diaspora of the Babylonian Captivity render the Old Covenant permanently disappeared? Of course not! The Torah of the Old Covenant was merely temporarily unable to be 100% obeyed.

Likewise, the present diaspora does NOT render the Torah of the Old Covenant permanently unobservable.

You have presupposed invalid reasoning. And you've ignored relevant passages from the prophets. Thus, you're position fails.

You wrote: "So, no more animal sacrifices."

My response: Wrong. Animal sacrifices are GUARANTEED to be restored in the future (Eze. 20; Eze. 40-47; Mal. 3; Is. 66; Jer. 33; Dt. 30). Let's not pretend that we can ignore the prophets.

You wrote: "Read the whole chapter, and the whole book. You are completely off base in your posts."

My response: Ok. Heb. 8 and Heb. 10 BOTH have TORAH written upon our heart so that we will OBEY it! And remember, Torah entails ANIMAL SACRIFICES. So then, the NEW COVENANT and ANIMAL SACRIFICES are consistent.

Thus, my position is CONSISTENT with the book of Hebrews here.

You wrote: "I tried to post whole chapters, and you didn't respond, Bibleguy, so now just verses, although anyone can read the chapter in any version of the Bible, and find the truth."

My response: I agree with every Biblical passage. The disagreement we have is the underlying interpretations you impose upon the passages. Therefore, tell me WHY you think a Biblical passage contradicts my position. Otherwise, you haven't justified your position over against mine. After all, my position is consistent with Scripture, so it does you no good to merely quote Scripture. If you merely quote Scripture, then I will simply agree with you! And remember, Scripture guarantees future animal sacrifices (Eze. 20; Eze. 40-47; Mal. 3; Is. 66; Jer. 33; Dt. 30).

You wrote: "Just a bunch of addresses, probably all pulled out of context."

My response: Read for yourself. Eze. 20; Eze. 40-47; Mal. 3; Is. 66; Jer. 33; Dt. 30. They all guarantee future animal sacrifices.

You wrote: "...not backed up by the actual verses, just addresses"

My response: LOL! The addresses represent the verses! Look them up and learn.

You wrote: "with the result of not understanding the Bible verses."

My response: You've yet to show me a Bible verse which contradicts my position.

You wrote: "Saying you believe the Bible, and missing that we don't need sacrifices anymore? Very strange."

My response: Apparently these verses are strange to you: Eze. 20; Eze. 40-47; Mal. 3; Is. 66; Jer. 33; Dt. 30.

You wrote: "...the old covenant has been fulfilled, and there is no need for sacrifices in a newly rebuilt temple. The only high priest we need is Jesus, in the heavenly sanctuary."

My response: That very Jesus comes to REBUILD the temple (Zec. 6). And what happens in the temple? Sacrifices! Thus you should NOT consider it "strange" that Jesus comes to RESTORE the covenant with Levi (Mal. 3). And what do the Levites do? Sacrifices! And they teach TORAH.

You wrote: "The only high priest we need is Jesus, in the heavenly sanctuary."

My response: That's CONSISTENT with Jesus restoring sacrifices (Mal. 3) in the temple he rebuilds (Zec. 6). I never said that a Levitical priest is our "high priest" of the order of Melchizedek.

You wrote: "Please comment on the verses."

My response: Please tell me why you think they contradict my position. Otherwise, you haven't justified your interpretation.

Moreover, you have NOT commented on Eze. 20; Eze. 40-47; Mal. 3; Is. 66; Jer. 33; Dt. 30. Please comment on these verses.

You wrote: "You don't use the Bible at all in your posts. You counter with addresses."

My response: LOL! BIBLICAL addresses denote BIBLE! Read it for yourself: Eze. 20; Eze. 40-47; Mal. 3; Is. 66; Jer. 33; Dt. 30. Your "addresses aren't the Bible" objection is a silly diversion.

You wrote: "throwing around without any knowledge or sense of who Jesus is, what he came to do, and where he is now! On the throne, King of Kings and Lord of Lords!"

My response: It is YOU who are without knowledge of Jesus' future role in rebuilding the temple (Zec. 6) in which a restored covenant with Levi (Mal. 3) includes restoration of animal sacrifices in fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant (Jer. 33) and the prophecy of Moses (Dt. 30).

Please change your viewpoint to account for this verses.

Let's not ignore the prophets.

And Mt. 23:34, where Jesus sends TORAH-TEACHERS to represent His Torah-teaching Torah-upholding ministry. This Torah-teaching applies to all disciples (Mt. 28:20). And Torah includes animal sacrifices. And this Torah applies even to you!

Remember, there are some pretty scary consequences (even for religious people) which will apply to those who oppose Torah (Mt. 7:21-23; Mt. 13:41-42).

Let's be careful to obey ALL Scripture.

regards...

 

[BibleGuy]

I would also stress the word "had", for those who think the first covenant is still valid or actual.

Even if you take that route, the fact remains that the TORAH (Jer. 31) of the Old Covenant passes into the New Covenant.

So, animal sacrifices are consistent with the New Covenant.

And, the prophets guarantee the restoration of animal sacrifices (Eze. 20; 40-47; Is. 66; Jer. 33; Dt. 30; Mal. 3).

regards...

 

[Locutus]

Chop, chop, get at it man - off with you to Israel to sacrifice at the ruins of the temple....

 

[BibleGuy]

The New covenant was an Old covenant promise which has been fulfilled negating the old covenant conditions for a return to the physical land in Deut 30.

Deu 30:8 And you shall again obey the LORD, and observe all His commandments which I command you today.

The things "which I command you today" passed away in the 1st century AD, therefore toclaim Deu 30 is still active is an anachronism.

Abraham sought the heavenly country not a dirt based city and temple.

Heb 11:16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them.

Hello,

You wrote: "The New covenant was an Old covenant promise which has been fulfilled negating the old covenant conditions for a return to the physical land in Deut 30."

My response: "Fulfilled" does not entail "negation" of that which was fulfilled.

A husband can FULFILL a marriage covenant today, and the covenant PERSISTS even tomorrow.

Jesus fulfills the New Covenant, but the New Covenant is not yet FULLY fulfilled in every sense. For example, Jer. 31:34 has not yet occurred.

Therefore, fulfillment of the Old Covenant does NOT entail negation of Old Covenant promises.

Furthermore, we Christians partake in the Abrahamic Covenant, which is absolutely linked to the LAND PROMISE INHERITANCE (Ge. 12:1), and we Christians SHARE in this promised land-inheritance (Gal. 3:29).

You wrote: "Abraham sought the heavenly country not a dirt based city and temple."

My response: "Heavenly" does not necessarily entail "not on earth". So, you've got an unjustified presupposition lurking in your mind there. After all, a heavenly Jerusalem can be located on dirt-based earth.

Furthermore, Scripture does NOT say that Abraham did not seek a "dirt-based city". Ge. 12:1 refers to the very dirt-based earth which God promised Abraham.

And if you pretend we can ignore the land-promises of the prophets, then you have implicitly assumed that the prophets are FALSE prophets.

I can't go there, buddy.

I gotta stick with Scripture.

regards...

 

[tourist]

It would take me a year of study to review and research all of your 12 arguments so I will not be offering an opinion today or in the future. I have no intention whatsoever of ever participating in animal sacrifice as Jesus already has sacrificed His life by dying on the cross for my sins. I'm not saying that your analysis is neither right or wrong but it's not a subject of interest to me.

 

[TMS]

I'm not sure what others have stated but
No way..
The reason for the sacrifices and the ceremonies where to point to Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.
It is Good for us to study them and understand the meaning behind them so that we can come closer to the process that is happening for us now.
But to start offering a sacrifice for our sins when Jesus is that Sacrifice would be to not acknowledge what Jesus has done and fail to accept what Jesus has done.

The veil was torn in two.
2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
Heb_10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb_10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Heb_10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

 

[BibleGuy]

Paul made an offering not a sacrifice - Paul's actions have to based on his position of being all things to all men:

1 Cor 9:19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more..

1 Cor 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;

1 Cor 9:22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.

Your use of this to establish your position is specious at best.

Hello,

You wrote: "Paul made an offering not a sacrifice."

My response: Oops! Please read again. The offering was a SACRIFICE (Gr. "prosphora", Ac. 21:26).

And, it is good to IMITATE Paul (1 Cor. 11:1), and LIKEWISE participate in the offering of sacrifices when possible, for the purpose of proving that we walk "orderly, keeping the Torah" (Ac. 21:24).

Furthermore, Paul was not "under the law" in the technical sense Paul has in mind, but he still obeyed the law (Ac. 21) and taught others to do the same (1 Cor. 7:19), and the law entails animal sacrifices when properly performed. And the prophets GUARANTEE return of animal sacrifices (Eze. 20; Eze. 40-47; Jer. 33; Dt. 30; Is. 66; Mal. 3; Zec. 6).

So, 1 Cor 9 is not evidence that animal sacrifices should not be performed.

And, 1 Cor 9 is not evidence that we should ignore the prophets which guarantee restoration of animal sacrifices.

And, 1 Cor 9 AFFIRMS the validity of applying Torah principles to the life of Christians (e.g., 1 Cor. 9:9). So, 1 Cor 9 is surely NOT evidence against the need to grow in faithful Torah-obedience (even with respect to animal sacrifices as sanctioned by Torah, when properly performed).

regards...

 

[TMS]

Psa 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

 

[LoveGodForever]

Hello,.

Hi BibleGuy

Nice to see you. Did you have a chance to read the posts I sent you earlier challenging your interpretation of the scriptures and your OP?

POST # 112; POST # 113; POST # 114; POST # 115 finishing with POST # 116 for the NEW Covenant?

Anyhow no need to reply if you do not want to. Something to pray about though at home. What you are promoting is that Christs sacrifice is not sufficient and trying to introduce the shadow laws that pointed to Jesus in the Old Covenant. This is not biblical under the New Covenant as shown in post # 116 linked above.

Anyhow nice to see you.

 

[shrimp]

Why not? We already sacrifice our children to the god of convenience and self love.

sick isn't it.

 

[TMS]

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Heb 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

Animal sacrifices are useless in the heavenly process. They are an insult to the sacrifice that Jesus has made. To try and purify yourself with these animal sacrifices is trying to do it yourself instead of having faith in the better sacrifice JESUS.


Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

 

[BibleGuy]

Ok, you obviously need the Greek. Most modern versions don't bring out the Perfect tense in the first two words of Hebrews 8:13. And again, people should not make doctrine unless they can read and understand Greek. Certainly, the English adequately explains to most of us, what this verse means. But, because you are special Bibleguy, I will go through the Greek, to try and help you see the error of your ways!

"ἐν τῷ λέγειν Καινὴν πεπαλαίωκεν τὴν πρώτην, τὸ δὲ παλαιούμενον καὶ γηράσκον ἐγγὺς ἀφανισμοῦ."

The NLT does capture a bit of the tense in the first part of the verse, which is so important for the exegesis of this verse

"When God speaks of a “new” covenant, it means he has made the first one obsolete. It is now out of date and will soon disappear." Hebrews 8:13 NLT

πεπαλαίωκεν - (pepalaioken) παλαιόω Perfect Indicative Active 3rd Person Singular - to declare or treat as old or obsolete. (the subject of this verb, which is not written, is God who is the subject of the quote from Jeremiah 31.) Perfect implies a completed action in the past, with consequences in the present. Legally, the person who made a covenant or testament could change or annul it. According to Hebrews, God established the first covenant, and he has replaced it with a new one. He is the speaker of the oracle in Jeremiah 31, (quoted after v. 13), thus the one who called the new covenant "new." (Καινὴν)

τὴν πρώτην - the first. The first one has been made obsolete. What are the on-going aspects of the first covenant being obsolete in the present? Well, that well, is where a totally new and different covenant follows it.

γηράσκον ἐγγὺς- in whichγηράσκον is a Present Active Participle 3rd person singular, meaning, to grow old, and ἐγγὺς means "near."

The language used in the Greek, points to a new act of God, he "has made the first one obsolete." To characterize the the first covenant in this way, points to its weakness and ineffectiveness.

παλαιούμενον - (palaiomenon) from παλαιόω from Present Passive Participle, 3rd person singular. (Again referring to God.) The final phrase, using Palaioo, the same verb used above, can signify hide, make unseen, or disappear, but when used with the noun ἀφανισμοῦ ( aphanismou - Genitive Masc. Singular) suggests utter destruction and abolition, and was used in the LXX when God destroyed the enemies in the Promised Land (Deut. 7:2) Josephus uses the word of cities that disappeared by destruction.

Given the author of Hebrew's understanding of the diction of the LXX, he has likely employed the word in a similar sense "the first covenant is not only old and weak, it is destined for imminent destruction." Where does the "immanent" come from, besides the inferences from Deuteronomy? Well, from the word ἐγγὺς which does NOT mean a far distant time, but close to now, near!

So, the Old Covenant was old, decayed, weak, and about to be destroyed. Although we do not know exactly when this was written, it was likely before the destruction of the temple and the fall of Jerusalem. So, "near" ἐγγὺς does not refer to a time 2000 years in the future. That is to do a horrible injustice to the text.

Instead, for the author of Hebrews, the old covenant was near its end, as soon as this was spoken. It had passed its "use by" date, its demise was a foregone conclusion.

That is why people who do not know Greek should not attempt to make doctrine, as you have done. The Old Covenant is gone, there was no "future" time, but instead, it was about to be totally destroyed in a time that was near, to be replaced totally by the New Covenant. That time was the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, when sacrifices were ended!

PS Ok, Lynn, that took a while! Much harder to exegete one verse, than just copy and paste a whole chapter.

Hello,

You wrote: "from the word ἐγγὺς which does NOT mean a far distant time, but close to now, near!"

My response: It is wrong to claim that the term "ἐγγὺς" can NOT mean a far distant time.

Remember? The time of the fulfillment of the words of the book of Revelation is "ἐγγὺς" (Rev. 22:10), but here we are some 2000 years later, and those words are STILL not all fulfilled!

So, your argument breaks down here.

You wrote: "That is why people who do not know Greek should not attempt to make doctrine, as you have done."

My response: If you know Greek, then why have you ignored the implications of Rev. 22:10 (as I just outlined here in this post) ?

Furthermore, you wrote: "That time was the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, when sacrifices were ended!"

My response: Where does the Bible say that the sacrifices were permanently ended in 70 AD? Nowhere!

That just your (unjustified) personal opinion.

The diaspora of the Babylonian Captivity was not the END of the animal sacrifices, but merely the temporary cessation of them.

Likewise, the present diaspora is merely a temporary cessation of what the prophets GUARANTEE will return.

So should we simply IGNORE the prophets who guarantee RESTORATION of animal sacrifices? (Eze. 20; Eze. 40-47; Is. 66; Jer. 33; Mal. 3; Zec. 6; Dt. 30) ?

Sorry. Can't go there. I choose to believe the prophets.

CONCLUSION: Something can be "ἐγγὺς", yet not occur for thousands of years into the future.

Therefore, the fact that the disappearance of the Old Covenant is "ἐγγὺς" in Heb. 8:13 is NOT evidence that it is no longer presently in force.

Regards....

 

[BibleGuy]

Ok got a question . You said how can you say this then promote the idea of animal sacrifice?
ultimate





adjective1.last; furthest or farthest; ending a processor series:the ultimate point in a journey; the ultimatestyle in hats.


2.maximum; decisive; conclusive:the ultimate authority; the ultimate weapon.


3.highest; not subsidiary:ultimate goal in life.


4.basic; fundamental; representing a limitbeyond which further progress, as ininvestigation or analysis, is impossible:the ultimate particle; ultimate principles.


5.final; total:the ultimate consequences; the ultimate costof a project.


6.not to be improved upon or surpassed;greatest; unsurpassed:the ultimate vacation spot; the ultimatestupidity.




Blessings
Bill

Hi Bill,

Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice, but animal sacrifices continue.

Why? Because the prophets guarantee it (Eze. 20; Eze. 40-47; Jer. 33; Is. 66; Dt. 30; Zec. 6; Mal. 3).

Thanks for asking.

Regards...

 

[tanakh]

The contents of the Bible reveals a PROGRESSIVE revelation of Gods plan to bring mankind back in union with himself. The whole sacrificial system was a shadow of the ultimate sacrifice that Christ fulfilled on our behalf. The Bible is written using Shadows Types and Symbols to convey Gods truth and until we come to terms with this we will never fully understand what it is all about.

 

[BibleGuy]

Well, BibleGuy, 3 pages and you have yet to post a single verse!

Because posting the address of a verse, then moving on, or posting the address of a verse, and then interpreting the verse, without actually posting the verse, tells me you don't know the Bible at all.


This is the Bible Discussion Forum, try discussing what the Bible says, instead of posting the address of a verse to support your very wrong opinions. That is just twisting the Bible, and reading into (eisegesis) it what you want it to say.

Please comment on the verses I have posted, and many others, instead of constantly throwing addresses and interpreting them and using them to support your very wrong eschatology. Dispensationalism is really a lie from the devil. Combine it with Hebrew Roots, and you have a nightmare!

Hello Angela,

Let's put aside the silly "Bible addresses are not Bible" objection.

If you disagree with my interpretation, then tell me why.

If you think your Bible verse contradicts my position, then tell me why.

Merely complaining that "Bible addresses are not Bible" fails to address the substance of my position.

Moreover, my usage of Bible addresses shows how I interpret the cited passages.

Your mere quotation of a verse does NOT show how you interpret the quoted passage.

We are discussing INTERPRETATION here, not methods of citation.

And you've shown nothing wrong with my method of citation.

And, am I "Hebrew Roots" or "Dispensationalist" ? Answer: I'm a Bible Guy. Hebrew Roots has some problems in its camp. Dispensationalists have problems too.

Thanks....

 

[TMS]

Some believe the whole law ended at the cross including the moral laws about love for God and Love for man (ceremonial and the 10 commandments).
Some believe the ceremonial laws finished at the fulfillment of the them, at the cross, (they pointed to Jesus and were a shadow, Jesus is the Lamb and the high priest).
Some believe the whole law remains and we should continue to follow all.

 

[PlainWord]

Exactly ! ... and great post <two thumbs up>

Thank you my brother!! Why do Canadians seem to understand better than most Americans, LOL? Did the infection, known as Darbyism, not survive the cold up there?

 

[PlainWord]

It's all about what I call, "AUDIENCE INTEGRITY." If one loses this, one tends to quickly begin to apply specific meanings, instructions, promises, events, etc, to a different audience - like us, perhaps. Futurists (Dispensationalists) do this all the time.