-
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.
The purpose of the red heifer sacrifice was for the purification of the person or persons who had become unclean in the process of handling a dead body when burying. We have a clear reference and connection to this in Hebrews 9:13 in that the blood of Christ has rendered all the sacrifices of the OT as null and void. That includes the red heifer sacrifice.
The Red Heifer can have more than two hairs that are not red.
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Lev.17:11
i.e., I asumme that the color red of the heifer is indicative of blood.
The Red Heifer makes atonement for sins for all Israel. Moses was the first to sacrifice a Red Heifer. The ahses of that first heifer were to be mixed with the ashes of the next and so on and so on. So in essence the ashes of the frist are held in perpetuity and the Third Temple cannot operate unless the urn that held the ashes of the first red heifer that had been mixed with the ashes of subsequent red heifers is found.
Israeli archeologist have been trying to do that.
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Lev.17:11
i.e., I asumme that the color red of the heifer is indicative of blood.
The Red Heifer makes atonement for sins for all Israel. Moses was the first to sacrifice a Red Heifer. The ahses of that first heifer were to be mixed with the ashes of the next and so on and so on. So in essence the ashes of the frist are held in perpetuity and the Third Temple cannot operate unless the urn that held the ashes of the first red heifer that had been mixed with the ashes of subsequent red heifers is found.
Israeli archeologist have been trying to do that.
Well a couple of reasons....
1. It could very easily be assembled and would fit on the temple mount.
2. The Jews are big about Moses and highly favor him and the giving of the law.
3. It would be a call to go back to their roots
4. It would remind them of the deliverance of/from Egypt as they will be seeking deliverance from the current world situation at the time.
5. The speed at which it could be set up and utilized
6. It just seems to make sense from a practical point of view
At the end of the day it is just my view and I have felt that way for some time......
1. It could very easily be assembled and would fit on the temple mount.
2. The Jews are big about Moses and highly favor him and the giving of the law.
3. It would be a call to go back to their roots
4. It would remind them of the deliverance of/from Egypt as they will be seeking deliverance from the current world situation at the time.
5. The speed at which it could be set up and utilized
6. It just seems to make sense from a practical point of view
At the end of the day it is just my view and I have felt that way for some time......
You might be interested in a book "The Temples That Jerusalem Forgot". You can get it at the link I've provided or if you can't afford it you can read it on line. Also watch the video "Jerusalem and the Lost Temple of the Jews".
The link may lead you to Associates for Scriptural Knowledge, click on that and it will take you to ASKELM, that stands for
Ask Ernest L. Martin. Let me know what you think.
Associates for Scriptural Knowledge
The link may lead you to Associates for Scriptural Knowledge, click on that and it will take you to ASKELM, that stands for
Ask Ernest L. Martin. Let me know what you think.
Associates for Scriptural Knowledge
I went to the site and scanned the preface, everything stated and looked at a few articles and I have no problem with what is being put forward....it seems plausible because the running water would solve the problem of washing away the blood, purification and also would go with the river of life that pours from the throne in Revelation as the temple on the earth would be a type or shadow of the heavenly.....just my view off the cuff without having checked out everything that was said.......not saying he is right or wrong, but very plausible........
N
In my mind, there is a conflict between this and what Christ said about not knowing when the end times would be. I've heard this and thought it before as well, but could never reconcile the two in my mind. Is it possible that scripture is in conflict? I find that hard to believe and refuse it. I then have to consider that I missed or don't understand something. How do you reconcile the two?
I don't quite get what you mean about running water washing away blood. From what I understand running water had to be used by the priests for purification before they served in the Temple. I could be wrong about that, but, at any rate once running water is put in some sort of container and transported some place it ceases to be running water 
and water doesn't run up hill if that is where the Temple was really located on what people are calling the Temple Mount.
The only source of running water was the Gihon Spring and that is below the Temple Mount.
In his book "The Temples Jerusalem Forgot", Mr. Martin makes an interesting observation:
Pg. 467 Once this southern location for the Temple is recognized, an historical account by Josephus now makes sense. He said that before the war, Agrippa the Second would customarily recline at dining in a veranda room at his palace with his friends. From that spot they could look at what was happening within the Temple courts. For Agrippa to see that interior of the Temple the elevated part of his palace (where he would dine with his friends) must have been in the Upper City and at an elevation higher than the western wall of the Temple. When the religious authorities heard that Agrippa was entertaining his friends in such a manner (viewing the religious activities within the Temple courts), they decided to prevent this by constructing a new wall on top of the western colonade. 699(Antiquities XX.8,11). This additional height obscured Agrippa's view.
Look at this incident carefully. In no way could Agrippa have seen inside the Temple courts if the Temple were located over the Dome of the Rock within the Haram. That area in the north is much higher in elevation and would have been far too elevated for Agrippa to look over the Temple walls into the courts where the worshippers assembled. This again shows that the Haram (Tample Mount) can in no way be considered the site of the Temple of Herod.
700 I am indebted to the Israeli architect Tuvia Sagiv for ponting it out to me on his Web Site. Indeed, with the actual Temple being located 600 feet south of the southern wall of the Haram, the observation of Tuvia Sagiv makes even better sense
(War VI.2,6).
and water doesn't run up hill if that is where the Temple was really located on what people are calling the Temple Mount.
The only source of running water was the Gihon Spring and that is below the Temple Mount.
In his book "The Temples Jerusalem Forgot", Mr. Martin makes an interesting observation:
Pg. 467 Once this southern location for the Temple is recognized, an historical account by Josephus now makes sense. He said that before the war, Agrippa the Second would customarily recline at dining in a veranda room at his palace with his friends. From that spot they could look at what was happening within the Temple courts. For Agrippa to see that interior of the Temple the elevated part of his palace (where he would dine with his friends) must have been in the Upper City and at an elevation higher than the western wall of the Temple. When the religious authorities heard that Agrippa was entertaining his friends in such a manner (viewing the religious activities within the Temple courts), they decided to prevent this by constructing a new wall on top of the western colonade. 699(Antiquities XX.8,11). This additional height obscured Agrippa's view.
Look at this incident carefully. In no way could Agrippa have seen inside the Temple courts if the Temple were located over the Dome of the Rock within the Haram. That area in the north is much higher in elevation and would have been far too elevated for Agrippa to look over the Temple walls into the courts where the worshippers assembled. This again shows that the Haram (Tample Mount) can in no way be considered the site of the Temple of Herod.
700 I am indebted to the Israeli architect Tuvia Sagiv for ponting it out to me on his Web Site. Indeed, with the actual Temple being located 600 feet south of the southern wall of the Haram, the observation of Tuvia Sagiv makes even better sense
(War VI.2,6).
I don't quite get what you mean about running water washing away blood. From what I understand running water had to be used by the priests for purification before they served in the Temple. I could be wrong about that, but, at any rate once running water is put in some sort of container and transported some place it ceases to be running water
and water doesn't run up hill if that is where the Temple was really located on what people are calling the Temple Mount.
The only source of running water was the Gihon Spring and that is below the Temple Mount.
In his book "The Temples Jerusalem Forgot", Mr. Martin makes an interesting observation:
Pg. 467 Once this southern location for the Temple is recognized, an historical account by Josephus now makes sense. He said that before the war, Agrippa the Second would customarily recline at dining in a veranda room at his palace with his friends. From that spot they could look at what was happening within the Temple courts. For Agrippa to see that interior of the Temple the elevated part of his palace (where he would dine with his friends) must have been in the Upper City and at an elevation higher than the western wall of the Temple. When the religious authorities heard that Agrippa was entertaining his friends in such a manner (viewing the religious activities within the Temple courts), they decided to prevent this by constructing a new wall on top of the western colonade. 699(Antiquities XX.8,11). This additional height obscured Agrippa's view.
Look at this incident carefully. In no way could Agrippa have seen inside the Temple courts if the Temple were located over the Dome of the Rock within the Haram. That area in the north is much higher in elevation and would have been far too elevated for Agrippa to look over the Temple walls into the courts where the worshippers assembled. This again shows that the Haram (Tample Mount) can in no way be considered the site of the Temple of Herod.
700 I am indebted to the Israeli architect Tuvia Sagiv for ponting it out to me on his Web Site. Indeed, with the actual Temple being located 600 feet south of the southern wall of the Haram, the observation of Tuvia Sagiv makes even better sense
(War VI.2,6).
and water doesn't run up hill if that is where the Temple was really located on what people are calling the Temple Mount.
The only source of running water was the Gihon Spring and that is below the Temple Mount.
In his book "The Temples Jerusalem Forgot", Mr. Martin makes an interesting observation:
Pg. 467 Once this southern location for the Temple is recognized, an historical account by Josephus now makes sense. He said that before the war, Agrippa the Second would customarily recline at dining in a veranda room at his palace with his friends. From that spot they could look at what was happening within the Temple courts. For Agrippa to see that interior of the Temple the elevated part of his palace (where he would dine with his friends) must have been in the Upper City and at an elevation higher than the western wall of the Temple. When the religious authorities heard that Agrippa was entertaining his friends in such a manner (viewing the religious activities within the Temple courts), they decided to prevent this by constructing a new wall on top of the western colonade. 699(Antiquities XX.8,11). This additional height obscured Agrippa's view.
Look at this incident carefully. In no way could Agrippa have seen inside the Temple courts if the Temple were located over the Dome of the Rock within the Haram. That area in the north is much higher in elevation and would have been far too elevated for Agrippa to look over the Temple walls into the courts where the worshippers assembled. This again shows that the Haram (Tample Mount) can in no way be considered the site of the Temple of Herod.
700 I am indebted to the Israeli architect Tuvia Sagiv for ponting it out to me on his Web Site. Indeed, with the actual Temple being located 600 feet south of the southern wall of the Haram, the observation of Tuvia Sagiv makes even better sense
(War VI.2,6).
I believe there will be a thousand year reign, but I sure don't see animal sacrifices taking place during that time. Shadows are done, the real temple of God is the body of Christ and we will be offering up spiritual sacrifices in it.... whatever that might be.
1Pe_2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1Pe_2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Daniel 9:27 says.......And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cease the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
2Thess.2:3,4 says.....Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
I believe this is all still future and neither can happen unless there is a temple. There has never been a seven year period in history as described in Dan.9:27 where a covenant of 7yrs was confirmed with the Jews and their worship ceased after only 3yrs. This will be the Jews final conflict with their last and greatest foe, the Antichrist in the seven-year period of tribulation preceding the end of their chastisements and their establishment in the promised earthly Messianic Davidic Kingdom and their blessed headship over the nations in the millennial Kingdom.
Remember when the temple is re-built they are still in un-belief.
Signing off for the evening. YAWN!
Last edited: