New covenant

[Botz]

First of all, you did not answer my questions, which were actually addressed to you. You claim you are being guided by the Holy Spirit. How, then, can you make doctrinal mistakes? Is His guidance insufficient for you?

I claim to be following the Holy Spirit to the best of my ability. I am not perfect in following the Holy Spirit, so being guided by the Holy Spirit does not preclude being wrong or misunderstanding the leading of the Holy Spirit. The human element is not eradicated.

Nice try, my friend.

The promise is that the Holy Spirit is going to lead us into all truth.

Since when does "all truth" mean "some truth and some error"?

Please explain how the Holy Spirit can lead shiloh357 into all truth, and yet shiloh357 still retains some errors.

Everything the Holy Spirit speaks/shows/demonstrates is the truth, because He is the Spirit of Truth...for Him to guide us into all truth is dependent upon us hearing and believing everything in the first place...which is just not possible because we have to take in the factor of the human element.

If you look at it on a par with the relationship between Jesus and His disciples....He was constantly with them, and everything He taught them was the truth...but they often mis-understood and jumped to the wrong conclusions, and needed His constant input/direction/correction/encouragement etc etc...the Holy Spirit is just the same with us...leading and guiding us into all truth.

[leoxiii]

First of all, you did not answer my questions, which were actually addressed to you. You claim you are being guided by the Holy Spirit. How, then, can you make doctrinal mistakes? Is His guidance insufficient for you?

I claim to be following the Holy Spirit to the best of my ability. I am not perfect in following the Holy Spirit, so being guided by the Holy Spirit does not preclude being wrong or misunderstanding the leading of the Holy Spirit. The human element is not eradicated.

Nice try, my friend.

The promise is that the Holy Spirit is going to lead us into all truth.

Since when does "all truth" mean "some truth and some error"?

Please explain how the Holy Spirit can lead shiloh357 into all truth, and yet shiloh357 still retains some errors.

Everything the Holy Spirit speaks/shows/demonstrates is the truth, because He is the Spirit of Truth...for Him to guide us into all truth is dependent upon us hearing and believing everything in the first place...which is just not possible because we have to take in the factor of the human element.

If you look at it on a par with the relationship between Jesus and His disciples....He was constantly with them, and everything He taught them was the truth...but they often mis-understood and jumped to the wrong conclusions, and needed His constant input/direction/correction/encouragement etc etc...the Holy Spirit is just the same with us...leading and guiding us into all truth.

When you proclaim doctrines to other people, how do you know if you are rightly understanding the Holy Spirit or not?

[Guest Ken Rank]

Please explain to me the need for an animal sacrifice now that Christ has been sacrificed.

The only sacrifice that was abrogated was the sin offering. That is the only offering not mentioned in Ezekiel 40-48. They will serve the same purpose they originally served. The Bible is replete with prophecies pertaining to the resumption of the sacrifces and the annual festivals during the millennial reign of Christ.

Hebrews 7:26 For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 Who needeth not daily (as the other priests) to offer sacrifices first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, in offering himself.

Does Jesus need animal sacrifices in addition to His own?

It shows you have a rather one-dimensional understanding of the sacrificial system. In the millennial reign of Christ, the sacrifices are not expiatory, but operate on a more civil level, as they did originally.

One of the things people fail to grasp is that the sacrifices were not the "Old Testament" means of salvation. No one was saved by them in the first place, so they do not in any way compete with the sacrifice of Christ. The burnt offering for example was simply an offering of worship. It was not sin atonement or anything like that.

I agree on these points. For some reason the sacrifces are seen through the modern eye as appeasing an "angry god," but that is not the case. In many ways, the sacrifices pointed to the work of Yehoshua, and I believe to some extent will point back at what he has done. But they never saved nor will they ever save. And, it seems clear, will continue in the millenial reign.

Peace.

Ken

[leoxiii]

Please explain to me the need for an animal sacrifice now that Christ has been sacrificed.

The only sacrifice that was abrogated was the sin offering. That is the only offering not mentioned in Ezekiel 40-48. They will serve the same purpose they originally served. The Bible is replete with prophecies pertaining to the resumption of the sacrifces and the annual festivals during the millennial reign of Christ.

Hebrews 7:26 For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 Who needeth not daily (as the other priests) to offer sacrifices first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, in offering himself.

Does Jesus need animal sacrifices in addition to His own?

It shows you have a rather one-dimensional understanding of the sacrificial system. In the millennial reign of Christ, the sacrifices are not expiatory, but operate on a more civil level, as they did originally.

One of the things people fail to grasp is that the sacrifices were not the "Old Testament" means of salvation. No one was saved by them in the first place, so they do not in any way compete with the sacrifice of Christ. The burnt offering for example was simply an offering of worship. It was not sin atonement or anything like that.

I agree on these points. For some reason the sacrifces are seen through the modern eye as appeasing an "angry god," but that is not the case. In many ways, the sacrifices pointed to the work of Yehoshua, and I believe to some extent will point back at what he has done. But they never saved nor will they ever save. And, it seems clear, will continue in the millenial reign.

Peace.

Ken

Can you demonstrate from the NT writings the revival of animal sacrifices?

[Franky67]

Please explain to me the need for an animal sacrifice now that Christ has been sacrificed.

The only sacrifice that was abrogated was the sin offering. That is the only offering not mentioned in Ezekiel 40-48. They will serve the same purpose they originally served. The Bible is replete with prophecies pertaining to the resumption of the sacrifces and the annual festivals during the millennial reign of Christ.

Hebrews 7:26 For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 Who needeth not daily (as the other priests) to offer sacrifices first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, in offering himself.

Does Jesus need animal sacrifices in addition to His own?

It shows you have a rather one-dimensional understanding of the sacrificial system. In the millennial reign of Christ, the sacrifices are not expiatory, but operate on a more civil level, as they did originally.

One of the things people fail to grasp is that the sacrifices were not the "Old Testament" means of salvation. No one was saved by them in the first place, so they do not in any way compete with the sacrifice of Christ. The burnt offering for example was simply an offering of worship. It was not sin atonement or anything like that.

I agree on these points. For some reason the sacrifces are seen through the modern eye as appeasing an "angry god," but that is not the case. In many ways, the sacrifices pointed to the work of Yehoshua, and I believe to some extent will point back at what he has done. But they never saved nor will they ever save. And, it seems clear, will continue in the millenial reign.

Peace.

Ken

Try reading Isaiah 11:6-10 and Isaiah 65:25

God has said there will no longer be any hurt on His Holy Mountain.

So if it "seems clear" to you that animal sacrifice will continue in the thousand year reign of Christ, show us the proof.

[EricH]

Please explain to me the need for an animal sacrifice now that Christ has been sacrificed.

The only sacrifice that was abrogated was the sin offering. That is the only offering not mentioned in Ezekiel 40-48. They will serve the same purpose they originally served. The Bible is replete with prophecies pertaining to the resumption of the sacrifces and the annual festivals during the millennial reign of Christ.

Hebrews 7:26 For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 Who needeth not daily (as the other priests) to offer sacrifices first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, in offering himself.

Does Jesus need animal sacrifices in addition to His own?

It shows you have a rather one-dimensional understanding of the sacrificial system. In the millennial reign of Christ, the sacrifices are not expiatory, but operate on a more civil level, as they did originally.

One of the things people fail to grasp is that the sacrifices were not the "Old Testament" means of salvation. No one was saved by them in the first place, so they do not in any way compete with the sacrifice of Christ. The burnt offering for example was simply an offering of worship. It was not sin atonement or anything like that.

I agree on these points. For some reason the sacrifces are seen through the modern eye as appeasing an "angry god," but that is not the case. In many ways, the sacrifices pointed to the work of Yehoshua, and I believe to some extent will point back at what he has done. But they never saved nor will they ever save. And, it seems clear, will continue in the millenial reign.

Peace.

Ken

Can you demonstrate from the NT writings the revival of animal sacrifices?

Why does it need to be from the NT. Is that your gold standard for all doctrine, that it needs to be stated in the NT?

[leoxiii]

Please explain to me the need for an animal sacrifice now that Christ has been sacrificed.

The only sacrifice that was abrogated was the sin offering. That is the only offering not mentioned in Ezekiel 40-48. They will serve the same purpose they originally served. The Bible is replete with prophecies pertaining to the resumption of the sacrifces and the annual festivals during the millennial reign of Christ.

Hebrews 7:26 For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 Who needeth not daily (as the other priests) to offer sacrifices first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, in offering himself.

Does Jesus need animal sacrifices in addition to His own?

It shows you have a rather one-dimensional understanding of the sacrificial system. In the millennial reign of Christ, the sacrifices are not expiatory, but operate on a more civil level, as they did originally.

One of the things people fail to grasp is that the sacrifices were not the "Old Testament" means of salvation. No one was saved by them in the first place, so they do not in any way compete with the sacrifice of Christ. The burnt offering for example was simply an offering of worship. It was not sin atonement or anything like that.

I agree on these points. For some reason the sacrifces are seen through the modern eye as appeasing an "angry god," but that is not the case. In many ways, the sacrifices pointed to the work of Yehoshua, and I believe to some extent will point back at what he has done. But they never saved nor will they ever save. And, it seems clear, will continue in the millenial reign.

Peace.

Ken

Can you demonstrate from the NT writings the revival of animal sacrifices?

Why does it need to be from the NT. Is that your gold standard for all doctrine, that it needs to be stated in the NT?

Yes. The temple described in Ezekiel was the one which Jesus said He would raise in 3 days, and the one from which He ousted the money-changers. It describes the temple built when Israel was returned to her land, and it describes the Temple outside of which no sacrifice is needed or wanted by God.

[lekh l'kha]

How can one who is being guided by the Holy Spirit make mistakes?

Is His guidance insufficient?

It's very easy - the Holy Spirit's illumination of the Word of God and the guidance of the Holy Spirit has to pass through the filter the the pre-conceived beliefs and ideas of any man (the way a man thinks things are, or should be), and the desires of any man (the way a man might want things to be).

What filters through is often only partial truth, and in some cases (as in the case of the now well-established doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church), completely and utterly corrupted.

Lekh

[leoxiii]

How can one who is being guided by the Holy Spirit make mistakes?

Is His guidance insufficient?

It's very easy - the Holy Spirit's illumination of the Word of God and the guidance of the Holy Spirit has to pass through the filter the the pre-conceived beliefs and ideas of any man (the way a man thinks things are, or should be), and the desires of any man (the way a man might want things to be).

What filters through is often only partial truth, and in some cases (as in the case of the now well-established doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church), completely and utterly corrupted.

Lekh

So, how do I distinguish between when what lekh l'kha is saying is the pure truth from the guidance of the Holy Spirit and when what lekh l'kha is saying is the pure truth adulterated by lekh l'kha's pre-conceived beliefs and ideas and desires?

[Guest Ken Rank]

Why does it need to be from the NT. Is that your gold standard for all doctrine, that it needs to be stated in the NT?

That is my position as well. 9 of the 10 Words (commands) are specifically stated in the NT. Does the lack then of a mention of Sabbath abrogate the Sabbath? I personally do not think so because when it was given, it was said to be everlasting. I believe there are a couple of pieces of information that would benefit the church when it comes to deeper understanding of scripture. The first is that the NT was not compiled for a couple of hundred years after the last Apostle died. While the NT is inspired, the only "scripture" in the day of the Apostles was the Torah and Prophets, even the writings of the Tanach (i.e. 1 & 2 Kings, etc.) was also not canonized until the 2nd century. So when we see words like "scripture" in the NT (2 Tim 3:16) or "word of God" (Luke 4:4- rhēma not logos), these are references to Torah or the Prophets. So when we read "all scripture is given by the inspiration of God" and "is profitable for doctrine" and "instruction in righteousness," we know Paul is saying that from Torah can we develope doctrine and be instructed in righteousness. And when we are told to "study to show ourselves approved a workman unto God," what do you think we were to study? The letters by the Apostles were not widely available for many years after they were gone, the reference again is to Torah.

Additionally, an earlier position of Shamai was overturned with the council of Acts 15, and Hillel's position of not putting too much on a convert at first was adopted.(though their debate was earlier than Messiah and dealing with converts to Judaism) But it meant that early believers in Yehoshua can start on milk but then be expected to study and grow into meat. This is why in Acts we see BOTH Jews AND Greeks meeting on Sabbath to hear the Torah scrolls read. The Greeks had already come in faith, but were advancing their knowledge of "scripture" by hearing the Torah scrolls read.

We translated Torah as law, and it is in the sense that what God says is fact. But Torah at it's root simply means "instruction." When we get to the point as a body and we realize it was dogma and not Torah nailed to the cross or stake, and that we weren't freed from walking in God's instruction (Torah) but rather from what Paul called, "the law of sin and death," then maybe we will get back to a point where we understand that a command or instruction of God called everlasting need not be repeated in the NT, because it is from Torah that we are instructed in righteousness. IMHO

Peace.

Ken