post Posted July 16, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 23 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,045 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 615 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/09/2015 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/03/1976 Share Posted July 16, 2016 in the book of Hebrews it is clearly taught that there has been a change in priesthood. that Christ, who sprang up through Judah, is our high priest forever - in a priesthood that will never be removed, and not by bloodline any longer, but directly by the decree of the Father. so Levi is no longer the priestly tribe. moreover, the scriptures say that all who are God's children through faith are being built into a kingdom of priests. in the temple described by Ezekiel however, great detail is given with regard to the priests - that they be Levites, and only descended from Zadok. i.e. the wrong priesthood, and by bloodline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
post Posted July 16, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 23 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,045 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 615 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/09/2015 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/03/1976 Share Posted July 16, 2016 (edited) the Lord has said, that He will come and dwell within us, and that we are His temple. this is the significance of the vision in Revelation 21 of the New Jerusalem -- it is assuredly not a literal city in which this temple from Ezekiel will be built -- that is ignorant. didn't John also say, "i saw no temple in the city there" ? but read Revelation 21 with comprehension: One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb."(Revelation 21:9) the city is the children of God, the Bride of Christ: His Church. and He will dwell within Her. the angel told him "I will show you the wife of the Lamb" -- and showed him the vision of the New Jerusalem. folks, 2 + 2 = 4. but in Ezekiel, we read that the Lord says this temple will be His dwelling place. ((re: Ezekiel 43:7)). we also have what Christ said to the woman at the well -- that the time has come, and now is, when men will no longer go to worship on this mountain or that one or some other, but in spirit and in truth. how then, after the resurrection, when we shall be one with Him, will the Lord instead dwell in a temple built by human hands, and all men will go to worship Him at a specific mountain, contradicting what He Himself said? Edited July 16, 2016 by post formatting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
post Posted July 16, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 23 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,045 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 615 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/09/2015 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/03/1976 Share Posted July 16, 2016 in Ezekiel's vision, out of the temple flows a river, from its foundation, of a water that gives life. that may sound familiar -- and it should: Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.(John 7:38) rivers of living water flow out of the believer - not a physical temple in Jerusalem, according to Christ. Christ -- who is the only foundation. Christ -- who is the center of the believer, who no longer himself lives, but Christ lives within him. the believer - who is the temple of God. allegory? hmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
post Posted July 16, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 23 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,045 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 615 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/09/2015 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/03/1976 Share Posted July 16, 2016 (edited) something that puzzles me is that in Ezekiel's vision, the temple is described as being adorned with engravings of angels and palm trees. Solomon's temple, by contrast - built according to a design given by God for the express purpose of being built - was adorned with engraved images of angels, palm trees, and open flowers. what is the significance of the open flowers? of them being absent in this vision? Edited July 16, 2016 by post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
post Posted July 16, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 23 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,045 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 615 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/09/2015 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/03/1976 Share Posted July 16, 2016 (edited) On 7/14/2016 at 7:31 AM, shiloh357 said: They serve as a memorial reminder of Jesus' sacrifice during the millennium for unbelievers who will inhabit the millennium. On 7/14/2016 at 0:29 PM, George said: These sacrifices will be a memorial of sacrifices for 1000 years as a reminder of the victory provided for us 2000 years ago. not only is this expressly not the purpose of the sacrifices as written and described in Ezekiel ((which are instead very clearly guilt, sin, atonement and sanctification sacrifices)), but we already have a memorial and reminder of the sacrifice that Jesus made. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.(1 Corinthians 11:26) And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.(Luke 22:19-20) is the Lord's Supper "not good enough" ? there is an obvious problem with the existence of the sacrificial system, if you read this description presupposing that it will be a literal temple in a presupposed literal 1,000 year reign after the resurrection. so to 'fix' that wee issue of blasphemous abomination going on at the feet of the Lord for a thousand years, without any Biblical support whatsoever, the common 'explanation' is 'no no no -- these are different these are memorial sacrifices!' i don't buy it. it's like being busted at airport security and saying 'oh no no this is different, it's medicinal' it's still illegal to bring dope back from Jamaica, and blood sacrifices are still blasphemous after Christ has offered Himself, once and for all. Edited July 16, 2016 by post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
post Posted July 16, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 23 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,045 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 615 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/09/2015 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/03/1976 Share Posted July 16, 2016 we are to offer our bodies as living sacrifices. not our livestock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 7 hours ago, post said: it's been put forth, without any significant justification, that the offerings and sacrifices described in detail here are to be "in memorial of" the sacrifice that Christ made. the one, final sacrifice for all sins. but the text of Ezekiel 40-43 never describes these sacrifices that way. that is purely extra-scriptural, speculative attempts at justification, made because it is presupposed that this will be a temple in a '1,000 year reign of Christ on earth' -- so for the person who believes this, they must somehow make the problem of blasphemous abomination go away. so they make this up and just state it as if it's true. the scripture itself here describes them as guilt offerings and sin offerings for atonement and sanctification. but the scriptures say that Christ's sacrifice sanctified once and for all time all that are being made holy. that there remains no more offering for sin. that there is nothing else that can remove guilt. so it seems to me that either the new testament is lying about the significance and efficacy of Christ's sacrifice, or Ezekiel is lying about the purpose of the sacrifices being described here, or as a third option, this isn't actually describing a literal temple to be built and fully operated during a thousand year literal reign of Christ on earth. I want to zero in on the issue of the sin offering and atonement in Ezekiel's temple. The sin offering made atonement. The problem is that most Christians have a one-dimensional understanding of the role of the sin offering. Most Christians view the sin offering ONLY in the expiatory sense. They only view atonement has having to do with moral sins committed by sinners who need a blood covering. That's the only context in which we, as Christians, use those terms. Going back to Exodus 29 we see this: And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it. Seven days thou shalt make an atonement for the altar, and sanctify it; and it shall be an altar most holy: whatsoever toucheth the altar shall be holy. (Exo 29:36-37) What see here is the sin offering making atonement for the for the altar. We see the same thing in Ezekiel 43: And thou shalt take of the blood thereof, and put it on the four horns of it, and on the four corners of the settle, and upon the border round about: thus shalt thou cleanse and purge it. Thou shalt take the bullock also of the sin offering, and he shall burn it in the appointed place of the house, without the sanctuary. And on the second day thou shalt offer a kid of the goats without blemish for a sin offering; and they shall cleanse the altar, as they did cleanse it with the bullock. (Eze 43:20-22) So, in addition to being a memorial, we see that in both the OT and NT that a sin offering served more than one purpose. It was meant to cleanse and/or consecrate (make holy) the altar on which sacrifices were being made. The Sin Offering in Ezekiel's temple, does not have anything to do with cleansing anyone from moral sin. In truth, the OT sin offering couldn't do that either. As I have stated there is an assumption among many Christians that the sacrifices were the OT means of salvation and that Jesus now provides a better way of salvation making the OT sacrifices obsolete on that basis. That is simply not the case. Book of Hebrews does say that the sin offering of Jesus, which is typified by the Yom Kippur offering made an end to that sin offering. One will note as they study Ezekiel that the Yom Kippur Sin Offering that covered the nation is not repeated in Ezekiel's Temple. There is no offering for sin in this temple. But what about the Guilt Offering???? Baker's Evangelical Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology says it better than I can: "The guilt (or reparation) offering. The purpose of the guilt offering was to make atonement for "desecration" of "sancta, " that is, the mishandling of holy (sacred) things by treating them as if they were common rather than holy. For example, according to Leviticus 22:10-16 the holy food gifts were to be eaten by the priests and those in their household, not the common people. To do so would be to "profane" the "holy" gifts (v. 15). However, if a common person ate holy meat mistakenly, then he had to give the same amount back to the priests plus one-fifth as reparation for what he had done. This passage is an instructive parallel to the major guilt offering pericope (i.e., Lev 5:14-6:7)." So we do not have anything in either the Sin Offering or the Guilt Offering that stands, in any way, as an affront to Jesus' final offering for sin on the cross. In fact, only one of the sacrifices have anything to do with sin and it is not even expiatory in nature. It is simply an consecratory act in Ezekiel's temple. I find it strange that you would oppose the notion that these are memorial in nature. It is theology 101 that the OT sacrifices were memorials. In Hebrew a memorial can look back or forward or both. The OT sacrifices point to Jesus. They were a memorials that looked forward to Jesus' death on the cross. The sacrifices in Ezekiel, given how they are presented serve as memorials as well. Yes we have a memorial of the Lord's death enshrined in communion. I mentioned that in fact, already. But we will not be taking communion during the millennium. Communion was only commanded to be done until Jesus' return, if you read the instructions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 8 hours ago, Kan said: The whole purpose of the ancient sanctuary was to prefigure the coming sacrifice of God's own Son, Whose sole purpose is to cleanse and restore mankind to be the temple in which His Spirit lives. That is the purpose of the temple in heaven today, to protect the sinner from the wrath of God, while the sinner is being transformed into the image of Jesus, in character. No, that is not the purpose of the temple in heaven today. Quote The ministry of Christ in heaven will not be replaced by another inferior system or temple, because it is the one and only ministry which can save humanity. It will not be repeated on any scale or degree. The temple in Ezekiel is not a replacement of Christ's ministry in heaven. Quote If there is another system of sacrifices after the earth is laid to waste by the Lord, then the Bible would have mentioned it in several places...the meaning of what "altar" is does not come across in the plain text, and I consider such a tangent of ideas to be based on nuances alone. In a previous post, which you did not read, apparently, I listed several Scripture passages outside of Ezekiel where these future sacrifices are spoken of and prophesied about. Quote I am fairly certain that those of you who have bought into this notion of a millennial reign on earth will continue with it for quite a while, so if I don't respond here for a while, don't be offended, because I cannot be of any use to the discussion. The millennium is biblical fact and truth. I am sorry you don't accept what the Bible says about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kan Posted July 16, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,661 Content Per Day: 0.49 Reputation: 1,292 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/21/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted July 16, 2016 10 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: I want to zero in on the issue of the sin offering and atonement in Ezekiel's temple. The sin offering made atonement. The problem is that most Christians have a one-dimensional understanding of the role of the sin offering. Most Christians view the sin offering ONLY in the expiatory sense. They only view atonement has having to do with moral sins committed by sinners who need a blood covering. That's the only context in which we, as Christians, use those terms. Going back to Exodus 29 we see this: And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it. Seven days thou shalt make an atonement for the altar, and sanctify it; and it shall be an altar most holy: whatsoever toucheth the altar shall be holy. (Exo 29:36-37) What see here is the sin offering making atonement for the for the altar. We see the same thing in Ezekiel 43: And thou shalt take of the blood thereof, and put it on the four horns of it, and on the four corners of the settle, and upon the border round about: thus shalt thou cleanse and purge it. Thou shalt take the bullock also of the sin offering, and he shall burn it in the appointed place of the house, without the sanctuary. And on the second day thou shalt offer a kid of the goats without blemish for a sin offering; and they shall cleanse the altar, as they did cleanse it with the bullock. (Eze 43:20-22) So, in addition to being a memorial, we see that in both the OT and NT that a sin offering served more than one purpose. It was meant to cleanse and/or consecrate (make holy) the altar on which sacrifices were being made. The Sin Offering in Ezekiel's temple, does not have anything to do with cleansing anyone from moral sin. In truth, the OT sin offering couldn't do that either. As I have stated there is an assumption among many Christians that the sacrifices were the OT means of salvation and that Jesus now provides a better way of salvation making the OT sacrifices obsolete on that basis. That is simply not the case. Book of Hebrews does say that the sin offering of Jesus, which is typified by the Yom Kippur offering made an end to that sin offering. One will note as they study Ezekiel that the Yom Kippur Sin Offering that covered the nation is not repeated in Ezekiel's Temple. There is no offering for sin in this temple. But what about the Guilt Offering???? Baker's Evangelical Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology says it better than I can: "The guilt (or reparation) offering. The purpose of the guilt offering was to make atonement for "desecration" of "sancta, " that is, the mishandling of holy (sacred) things by treating them as if they were common rather than holy. For example, according to Leviticus 22:10-16 the holy food gifts were to be eaten by the priests and those in their household, not the common people. To do so would be to "profane" the "holy" gifts (v. 15). However, if a common person ate holy meat mistakenly, then he had to give the same amount back to the priests plus one-fifth as reparation for what he had done. This passage is an instructive parallel to the major guilt offering pericope (i.e., Lev 5:14-6:7)." So we do not have anything in either the Sin Offering or the Guilt Offering that stands, in any way, as an affront to Jesus' final offering for sin on the cross. In fact, only one of the sacrifices have anything to do with sin and it is not even expiatory in nature. It is simply an consecratory act in Ezekiel's temple. I find it strange that you would oppose the notion that these are memorial in nature. It is theology 101 that the OT sacrifices were memorials. In Hebrew a memorial can look back or forward or both. The OT sacrifices point to Jesus. They were a memorials that looked forward to Jesus' death on the cross. The sacrifices in Ezekiel, given how they are presented serve as memorials as well. Yes we have a memorial of the Lord's death enshrined in communion. I mentioned that in fact, already. But we will not be taking communion during the millennium. Communion was only commanded to be done until Jesus' return, if you read the instructions. BTW Any animal sacrifice that God had requested was never there for entertainment, or for a religious excuse as done by Cain and King Saul, or for a memorial. The idea of a sacrifice being named or considered to be a memorial is straight out of the book of rituals for Satan worship. God never wanted sacrifice, He wants obedience and not sacrifice. And if there was to be any sacrifice, it was to symbolize the cleansing or ordination of the temple and its furnishings, and or for the remission of sins by a sin offering. The sacrifice for the temple and its furnishings, represented the cost of God's only Son in making it possible for sinners to have a place where they can connect with God on His terms. That is what the whole sanctuary stands for. The only memorial ordained of God for the occasion of the crucifixion was the passover ordinance that Jesus made for the disciples prior His death, as said by Post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 3 minutes ago, Kan said: BTW Any animal sacrifice that God had requested was never there for entertainment, or for a religious excuse as done by Cain and King Saul, or for a memorial. The idea of a sacrifice being named or considered to be a memorial is straight out of the book of rituals for Satan worship. No, that is not true. The whole law is a set of memorials. The sacrifices were a reminder or memorial of the final sacrifice to come. We all know that. That is basic theology. It has nothing to do with satan worship Quote God never wanted sacrifice, He wants obedience and not sacrifice. And if there was to be any sacrifice, it was to symbolize the cleansing or ordination of the temple and its furnishings, and or for the remission of sins by a sin offering. The Sacrifices were God's idea, he designed them and commanded them to be done. God wants our obedience over sacrifices. The sacrifices were never the point. God was never appeased by them. They were pictures of what was to come. Quote The sacrifice for the temple and its furnishings, represented the cost of God's only Son in making it possible for sinners to have a place where they can connect with God on His terms. That is what the whole sanctuary stands for. Actually, it was really a system of pictures pointing ahead. Quote The only memorial ordained of God for the occasion of the crucifixion was the passover ordinance that Jesus made for the disciples prior His death, as said by Post. Not really. The Sin offering in the OT was a memorial for that, as well as the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb in the OT. In the NT we have communion, but that will only be performed until Christ comes back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts