I believe all of Ezekiel, as I believe all of the Word. The Temple of Ezekial will not be built in this age, not until th erest anyway. Read Ezekiel and see if the times of the Israel of this age have anything at ll to do with the Israel described in Ezekiel. There is no resemblance. Believe the Word, not dogmas of men. I am not giving a dogmma to anyone, but read and believe God in Jesus Christ. He is worthy, amen.
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I will quote it again:
Again the word of the Lord came to me: [SUP]17 [/SUP]“Son of man, when the people of Israel were living in their own land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Their conduct was like a woman’s monthly uncleanness in my sight. [SUP]18 [/SUP]So I poured out my wrath on them because they had shed blood in the land and because they had defiled it with their idols. [SUP]19 [/SUP]I dispersed them among the nations, and they were scattered through the countries; I judged them according to their conduct and their actions. [SUP]20 [/SUP]And wherever they went among the nations they profaned my holy name, for it was said of them, ‘These are the Lord’s people, and yet they had to leave his land.’ [SUP]21 [/SUP]I had concern for my holy name, which the people of Israel profaned among the nations where they had gone.[SUP]22 [/SUP]“Therefore say to the Israelites, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: It is not for your sake, people of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone. [SUP]23 [/SUP]I will show the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, the name you have profaned among them. Then the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Sovereign Lord, when I am proved holy through you before their eyes.
[SUP]24 [/SUP]“‘For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. [SUP]25 [/SUP]I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. [SUP]26 [/SUP]I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. [SUP]27 [/SUP]And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. [SUP]28 [/SUP]Then you will live in the land I gave your ancestors; you will be my people, and I will be your God.
Again the word of the Lord came to me: [SUP]17 [/SUP]“Son of man, when the people of Israel were living in their own land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Their conduct was like a woman’s monthly uncleanness in my sight. [SUP]18 [/SUP]So I poured out my wrath on them because they had shed blood in the land and because they had defiled it with their idols. [SUP]19 [/SUP]I dispersed them among the nations, and they were scattered through the countries; I judged them according to their conduct and their actions. [SUP]20 [/SUP]And wherever they went among the nations they profaned my holy name, for it was said of them, ‘These are the Lord’s people, and yet they had to leave his land.’ [SUP]21 [/SUP]I had concern for my holy name, which the people of Israel profaned among the nations where they had gone.[SUP]22 [/SUP]“Therefore say to the Israelites, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: It is not for your sake, people of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone. [SUP]23 [/SUP]I will show the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, the name you have profaned among them. Then the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Sovereign Lord, when I am proved holy through you before their eyes.
[SUP]24 [/SUP]“‘For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. [SUP]25 [/SUP]I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. [SUP]26 [/SUP]I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. [SUP]27 [/SUP]And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. [SUP]28 [/SUP]Then you will live in the land I gave your ancestors; you will be my people, and I will be your God.
I state this categorically that I believe God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and never changed.
The first animal offer was made in the garden of Eden when God gave Adam and Eve their clothes
Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
Where do I think God got the skins from to make them coats? God made the first sacrifice for repentance of sin. The Bible also states that we are all born in sin and Abraham was not taken up into heaven like Enoch so once again I believe that Abraham was a sinner and had to repent in the way YHWH Elohim showed Adam and Eve.
Regarding The_highwayman’s question about tithing let the word of God explain the word of God:
Gen 14:14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.
Gen 14:15 And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.
Gen 14:16 And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.
Gen 14:17 And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale.
Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
Heb 7:1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
Heb 7:2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
The first animal offer was made in the garden of Eden when God gave Adam and Eve their clothes
Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
Where do I think God got the skins from to make them coats? God made the first sacrifice for repentance of sin. The Bible also states that we are all born in sin and Abraham was not taken up into heaven like Enoch so once again I believe that Abraham was a sinner and had to repent in the way YHWH Elohim showed Adam and Eve.
Regarding The_highwayman’s question about tithing let the word of God explain the word of God:
Gen 14:14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.
Gen 14:15 And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.
Gen 14:16 And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.
Gen 14:17 And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale.
Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
Heb 7:1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
Heb 7:2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
I'm not sure that repentance is the correct word. God shed the blood of animals to make the covering for Adam and Eve. The blood of animals was and could be nothing more than a covering for sin. A covering that required refreshing from time to time. The blood of Christ has made not a covering but an atonement for sin. An eternal atonement never needing to be refreshed or added to no matter how great the sin.
Repentance is more of a reversal of heart attitude. Atonement makes repentance possible and God acts in atonement where man acts in repentance.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Repentance is more of a reversal of heart attitude. Atonement makes repentance possible and God acts in atonement where man acts in repentance.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
When David wanted to build dthe Temple for God, God would not allow it because he had blood guilt from killing, not just Uriah, but all the battles he fought at the bidding of God.
Do you honestly believe the Israel of this age is without blood guilt. The very same pitiful occurances in the rest of the world are going on also in Israel today. It is not a "country run by God." If you believe th land has been returned to Israel, it is recommended you read what the first Israel was.
When the Good Shepher returns, those who are asleep in Jesus the King will rise first then those who are alive will be taken up to meet the King of Israel on the cloud, and the Israel of God will be born in an instant...............
Do you honestly believe the Israel of this age is without blood guilt. The very same pitiful occurances in the rest of the world are going on also in Israel today. It is not a "country run by God." If you believe th land has been returned to Israel, it is recommended you read what the first Israel was.
When the Good Shepher returns, those who are asleep in Jesus the King will rise first then those who are alive will be taken up to meet the King of Israel on the cloud, and the Israel of God will be born in an instant...............
YEs of course, but do not tell me there is anything at all holy about the Israel of this age. The country does not even have a single theology. It is the staging ground for the Tribulation to come, the Beast and the two prophets .
The only temple that would be rebuilt in Jerusalem will not be the Temple of ezekial, unless you believe the Beast will enter into Ezekiel's Temple.
At any rate, we are completly off topic. If yo wish to interpret Ezekiel, why ont start your own thread. It is certain to be very popular
The only temple that would be rebuilt in Jerusalem will not be the Temple of ezekial, unless you believe the Beast will enter into Ezekiel's Temple.
At any rate, we are completly off topic. If yo wish to interpret Ezekiel, why ont start your own thread. It is certain to be very popular
What very little I understand about Ezekiel I believe is certain, however I leave most of Ezekiel for future understanding and only when it is of the Holy Spirit. I am not by any means implying you are wrong in your understanding, but the little I have shared of what I believe I know, will not be changed simply by "telling me you are correct and dI am wrong or vice versa." I leave it with, you could be correct, but I do not se the Israel of this age as being religious or Holy. Perhaps aftr yo have visited there it will be made clear what you understan or refuted.
One thing interesting is the city today is about 20 and more feet above teh Israel of Christ's walk on His earth.
One thing interesting is the city today is about 20 and more feet above teh Israel of Christ's walk on His earth.
For myself, if I visited Israel and looked at the situation through my own eyes/understanding I would probably agree with you. However, for me, there is too much biblical prophecies, all stating the same thing and so I accept them in simple faith.
I wasn't expecting to change your view BTW, I find people rarely change their views on sites such as these
S
Hi, thanks for your follow up and for bringing the Word. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with the Matthew and Isaiah verses, but thanks for sharing nonetheless.
On Acts 10, since you only posted verses with emphasis added, and no reflection of your own, I'm not sure if you agree with me or not. So, I'll simply repeat what I said in my previous post with some additional thoughts. I believe Peter's vision is about people only (Gentiles, specifically) and has no lessons for dietary issues. There is absolutely no explicit evidence that Peter was supposed to interpret a change has occurred regarding unclean meats, nor is there any explicit evidence he interpreted the vision in any way connected to dietary issues. Firstly, he fell into a trance and saw a vision, so it's a dream-like situation. Until this point, Peter has clearly never eaten anything that is unclean or impure (there is a difference between the two!), since he admits this with his own mouth. Notice that even in the vision, Peter does not eat. God doesn't respond with anything like, "But Peter, you can eat whatever you like! The dietary restrictions are removed!" I believe God's response, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean,” is about people (Gentiles) only. This is why the vision repeats three times and Peter is greeted by three men. Later when Peter retells the story twice, he never mentions anything at all about dietary restrictions. When his listeners respond to the story, including his Jewish brethren, no one says anything about dietary restrictions. No one says, "Amazing! God has showed us not to call anyone unclean, and that we can eat whatever we like!" Later elsewhere in the NT writings, there is no evidence of any of them eating unclean meats. It never says, "And after Peter baptized Cornelius, they sat down and ate roasted pork." I'll repeat: there is no explicit evidence of a change regarding dietary restrictions; there is only our attempt to come up with an interpretation based on our reading of the event. Why don't we simply trust the interpretation given to us by Peter (twice!) instead of inserting one foreign to the text? One might claim: But God wouldn't have told Peter to kill and eat if there hadn't been a change in dietary restrictions, or if He didn't intend for Peter to actually eat the unclean and impure animals! That's one's opinion, not the fact of the text, and is one which I don't believe is necessarily true. God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and this wasn't a dream-like vision -- it was real life! But God certainly did not intend for Abraham to violate God's command against human sacrifice and actually do it, as is clear by God's intervention to prevent him from carrying it out. It was a test! And likewise with Peter, I believe the vision and God's words are meant to evoke a strong reaction out of him, one which God intends him to recognize is about Gentiles and apply it rightfully.
On Acts 15, it also never explicitly says to abandon the 10 Commandments, no matter how you read it. Again, I believe these four directives were to be starter instructions. There is no way they were intended to be everything that a Gentile were to obey throughout the rest of their lives, for that would permit them to do all sorts of ungodly things. The idea is once saved, do these four things immediately! They were never intended to replace the Torah-Law. And besides, these four directives weren't just pulled out of thin air. They are explicit commands found in the Torah-Law! So it's left to us to figure out why these four directives were singled out as starter instructions, since the text never explicitly says. The theory I currently think holds the most water is that these four directives are intimately linked to common pagan practices and occult temple worship, and by keeping these four directives, they would be immediately separating themselves from their pagan ways and more easily allow them fellowship with their Jewish brethren already established in the faith.
On the schoolmaster, I look to the Messiah first and foremost. He is my example. I aim to walk as He walked. But also notice that no sin was found in Him -- He never violated the Torah-Law. Yes, the Torah-Law is to point us to and lead us to the Messiah. Does that mean we forget everything it says once we are led to Him? I think not.
On the temple being destroyed, I think you might be making more out of this than is intended. When the Babylonians destroyed the first Temple in 586 BC, the Israelites did not believe that God had nullified the entire Torah-Law. No, the Torah-Law still stood and was in effect, but the Israelites were unable to keep the commands regarding the Temple. Similarly when the second Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, the Jewish people needed to adapt to the reality of not being able to keep the commands regarding the Temple, and thus Rabbinical Judaism (as it is observed today) was born. Not all of the Torah-Law has to do with the Temple, e.g., there not being a Temple doesn't prevent me from not eating the things which God has called detestable or abominable and not to be eaten. The question for us to consider today is, when the future Temple is built, which manner of Temple service will resume and will these services be acceptable to God or be considered an affront to Him? For this, we look to the prophets and interpret from there, but this is not a debate I wish to start at this time. My only point is that all the commands are not directly linked to the Temple services, so the destruction of the Temple shouldn't be considered a full dismissal of the entire Torah-Law. I do not believe it is correct to assume that if we cannot keep the Temple service commands, then we aren't supposed to keep any of the commands. That was certainly not the case of Babylon, since there is evidence in Babylon they continued to observe whatever they reasonably could, so we shouldn't assume this is the case now in the absence of a Temple.
On Acts 10, since you only posted verses with emphasis added, and no reflection of your own, I'm not sure if you agree with me or not. So, I'll simply repeat what I said in my previous post with some additional thoughts. I believe Peter's vision is about people only (Gentiles, specifically) and has no lessons for dietary issues. There is absolutely no explicit evidence that Peter was supposed to interpret a change has occurred regarding unclean meats, nor is there any explicit evidence he interpreted the vision in any way connected to dietary issues. Firstly, he fell into a trance and saw a vision, so it's a dream-like situation. Until this point, Peter has clearly never eaten anything that is unclean or impure (there is a difference between the two!), since he admits this with his own mouth. Notice that even in the vision, Peter does not eat. God doesn't respond with anything like, "But Peter, you can eat whatever you like! The dietary restrictions are removed!" I believe God's response, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean,” is about people (Gentiles) only. This is why the vision repeats three times and Peter is greeted by three men. Later when Peter retells the story twice, he never mentions anything at all about dietary restrictions. When his listeners respond to the story, including his Jewish brethren, no one says anything about dietary restrictions. No one says, "Amazing! God has showed us not to call anyone unclean, and that we can eat whatever we like!" Later elsewhere in the NT writings, there is no evidence of any of them eating unclean meats. It never says, "And after Peter baptized Cornelius, they sat down and ate roasted pork." I'll repeat: there is no explicit evidence of a change regarding dietary restrictions; there is only our attempt to come up with an interpretation based on our reading of the event. Why don't we simply trust the interpretation given to us by Peter (twice!) instead of inserting one foreign to the text? One might claim: But God wouldn't have told Peter to kill and eat if there hadn't been a change in dietary restrictions, or if He didn't intend for Peter to actually eat the unclean and impure animals! That's one's opinion, not the fact of the text, and is one which I don't believe is necessarily true. God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and this wasn't a dream-like vision -- it was real life! But God certainly did not intend for Abraham to violate God's command against human sacrifice and actually do it, as is clear by God's intervention to prevent him from carrying it out. It was a test! And likewise with Peter, I believe the vision and God's words are meant to evoke a strong reaction out of him, one which God intends him to recognize is about Gentiles and apply it rightfully.
On Acts 15, it also never explicitly says to abandon the 10 Commandments, no matter how you read it. Again, I believe these four directives were to be starter instructions. There is no way they were intended to be everything that a Gentile were to obey throughout the rest of their lives, for that would permit them to do all sorts of ungodly things. The idea is once saved, do these four things immediately! They were never intended to replace the Torah-Law. And besides, these four directives weren't just pulled out of thin air. They are explicit commands found in the Torah-Law! So it's left to us to figure out why these four directives were singled out as starter instructions, since the text never explicitly says. The theory I currently think holds the most water is that these four directives are intimately linked to common pagan practices and occult temple worship, and by keeping these four directives, they would be immediately separating themselves from their pagan ways and more easily allow them fellowship with their Jewish brethren already established in the faith.
On the schoolmaster, I look to the Messiah first and foremost. He is my example. I aim to walk as He walked. But also notice that no sin was found in Him -- He never violated the Torah-Law. Yes, the Torah-Law is to point us to and lead us to the Messiah. Does that mean we forget everything it says once we are led to Him? I think not.
On the temple being destroyed, I think you might be making more out of this than is intended. When the Babylonians destroyed the first Temple in 586 BC, the Israelites did not believe that God had nullified the entire Torah-Law. No, the Torah-Law still stood and was in effect, but the Israelites were unable to keep the commands regarding the Temple. Similarly when the second Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, the Jewish people needed to adapt to the reality of not being able to keep the commands regarding the Temple, and thus Rabbinical Judaism (as it is observed today) was born. Not all of the Torah-Law has to do with the Temple, e.g., there not being a Temple doesn't prevent me from not eating the things which God has called detestable or abominable and not to be eaten. The question for us to consider today is, when the future Temple is built, which manner of Temple service will resume and will these services be acceptable to God or be considered an affront to Him? For this, we look to the prophets and interpret from there, but this is not a debate I wish to start at this time. My only point is that all the commands are not directly linked to the Temple services, so the destruction of the Temple shouldn't be considered a full dismissal of the entire Torah-Law. I do not believe it is correct to assume that if we cannot keep the Temple service commands, then we aren't supposed to keep any of the commands. That was certainly not the case of Babylon, since there is evidence in Babylon they continued to observe whatever they reasonably could, so we shouldn't assume this is the case now in the absence of a Temple.
Never better said. As we are taught, there is nothing more important to any of us t than Christ crucified for our wretched souls. His work is the good work for us all.
If you are going to Isral, try to make it to a street calle Via Dolorosa. There is a convent there. If they still allow people in it, bo in and ask about what they discovered in their basement, and see it if possible. The nuns were cleaning it out decades ago after having been there for who knows how long, and lo, they discoverd the pavement of a street from tiems past. In the rocks formin the pavement is etched deeply into them the rendition of a game the Roman soldiers used to play with prisoners who were condemned to death. It depicts mokings and hailing the prisoner as king. It may or may not be authentic, but it overwhelmed me.
If you are going to Isral, try to make it to a street calle Via Dolorosa. There is a convent there. If they still allow people in it, bo in and ask about what they discovered in their basement, and see it if possible. The nuns were cleaning it out decades ago after having been there for who knows how long, and lo, they discoverd the pavement of a street from tiems past. In the rocks formin the pavement is etched deeply into them the rendition of a game the Roman soldiers used to play with prisoners who were condemned to death. It depicts mokings and hailing the prisoner as king. It may or may not be authentic, but it overwhelmed me.
S
Good morning! Great to discuss with you again. I agree that love agrees with the Torah-Law. But how do you reconcile love agreeing with the Torah-Law, for example, if you claim love leads you to eat whatever you like, but the Torah-Law says not to eat certain things which God has declared as detestable or abominable (and please recognize, when the Torah-Law says something, what it really means is God said something since He is the giver of the commands contained within)? Isn't this a disagreement? Also, if these unclean animals weren't suitable for sacrifice at the physical Temple, which housed God's spirit, why are they acceptable to be consumed in our physical body, which we know is the Temple of the Holy Spirit?
As for the dietary commands, I humbly disagree with you about the NT being "perfectly clear" that these requirements have been "fulfilled in Christ" -- which is to mean we are not to observe them and we can eat whatever we like. I take issue with every NT verse presented as evidence of this position, and I've studied them all over the years. I admit, my study itself doesn't make me correct in my understanding -- I just mean to say I've explored the evidence and am in disagreement with the common interpretation of that evidence. I've presented my case on Acts 10 in a couple of my recent posts. This thread isn't about dietary restrictions, so I don't wish to derail the topic or explore it further here.
As far as the NT showing dietary restrictions have no relation to true godliness, it should be worth noting that when the dietary restrictions are given in Lev. 11, God clearly more than once states: "I am the Lord your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy." (Lev. 11:44a). There seems to be a direct connection to godliness here regarding the dietary commands! God is holy, and he wants us to be holy! We should all be careful about letting our interpretations of the NT authors and writings undermine what God has clearly spoken with His own mouth. Be blessed~
As for the dietary commands, I humbly disagree with you about the NT being "perfectly clear" that these requirements have been "fulfilled in Christ" -- which is to mean we are not to observe them and we can eat whatever we like. I take issue with every NT verse presented as evidence of this position, and I've studied them all over the years. I admit, my study itself doesn't make me correct in my understanding -- I just mean to say I've explored the evidence and am in disagreement with the common interpretation of that evidence. I've presented my case on Acts 10 in a couple of my recent posts. This thread isn't about dietary restrictions, so I don't wish to derail the topic or explore it further here.
As far as the NT showing dietary restrictions have no relation to true godliness, it should be worth noting that when the dietary restrictions are given in Lev. 11, God clearly more than once states: "I am the Lord your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy." (Lev. 11:44a). There seems to be a direct connection to godliness here regarding the dietary commands! God is holy, and he wants us to be holy! We should all be careful about letting our interpretations of the NT authors and writings undermine what God has clearly spoken with His own mouth. Be blessed~
Last edited by a moderator: