Ezekiel's Temple: God's Millennial Temple

[Kan]

6 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No, that is not the purpose of the temple in heaven today. 

The temple in Ezekiel is not a replacement of Christ's ministry in heaven.

 

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.

The millennium is biblical fact and truth.  I am sorry you don't accept what the Bible says about it.

Your first statement about the purpose of the heavenly sanctuary shows you don't know anything about the topic. The sole purpose of the service of Christ as the high priest in the heavenly sanctuary is put forward very clearly by Paul.

Unless you have a basic knowledge of the book of Hebrews, I don't think you are ready to discuss the sanctuary and its purpose.

Are you are placing yourself against Paul and the Bible? 

Why do you do this? Why? 

BTW, I did not say that Ezekiel's temple replaced Christ's ministry in heaven, you are trying to correct me for something I did not say, which is kind of weird.

I don't care if you do that, but if you are twisting the Bible, then you'll do it to your own destruction. That's why I did not respond to the reams of texts you quote, which are all 'adapted' your interpretation. You have just proven that you are clueless about Hebrews the most fundamental explanation of the ancient system in the NT. 

If you want your theory to rock the theological world, you will have to be able to meet the challenge on that level.

 

[Kan]

18 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

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

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.

 

Actually, it was really a system of pictures pointing ahead. 

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. 

If what you are saying is true - about the millennium etc, why did the reformers not teach it or find it in the Bible? Why have the disciples and apostles not spoken about it, and why has Jesus never said anything about it?

You really are on your own here. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[Steve_S]

Kan has been banned from the topic for personal attacks and will be issued a warning point.

[post]

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

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 . . . 

stop right there: 

it's not a memorial. that is not what the scripture states. that is something you are adding to it, without justification, but rather, in order to justify a position you already hold and are approaching the scripture with looking for a way to fit the scripture into your presupposed idea. 

[post]

3 hours ago, Steve_S said:

Kan has been banned from the topic for personal attacks and will be issued a warning point.

if making the plain observation that another person appears to be speaking without knowledge is "personal attacks" -- then consider me also on a self-imposed ban. 

goodbye. 

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, post said:

stop right there: 

it's not a memorial. that is not what the scripture states. that is something you are adding to it, without justification, but rather, in order to justify a position you already hold and are approaching the scripture with looking for a way to fit the scripture into your presupposed idea. 

All of the sacrifices are memorials.  That's their primary purpose.  That was their role in under the Mosaic system and that is their role here.   You're the first person I have ever found that denies that basic fact.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, post said:

if making the plain observation that another person appears to be speaking without knowledge is "personal attacks" -- then consider me also on a self-imposed ban. 

goodbye. 

Kan was banned for belittling my thinking skills, not for disagreeing with me.

[post]

Just now, shiloh357 said:

All of the sacrifices are memorials.  That's their primary purpose.  That was their role in under the Mosaic system and that is their role here.   You're the first person I have ever found that denies that basic fact.

no Shiloh -- maybe you only speak to "yes-men" ((and those who oppose you, you try to get banned from the topic)) but the purpose of the sacrifices and offerings are clearly stated in scripture. they are not "for a memorial" 
feasts are "for a memorial" -- e.g. the Lord's Supper is "for a memorial" -- but you imagine it will be replaced by a blasphemous sacrifice which the scripture clearly states is "for atonement for sin" and "for a guilt offering" and "for sanctification" -- not because the scripture says so, but because that's how you can make it 'make sense' to yourself. 

it's something that is added -- not something that is written. 

yes, the sacrificial system under the old covenant pointed forward to Christ: it is a shadow, and the substance is come. but a second shadow? what, do you imagine there are two lights? and two substances? 

forget it. 
you're not going to listen, and i'm not going to take part in this thread anymore. i have put enough here that anyone who has ears can read and consider for themselves. 

self-imposed ban. 

goodbye. 

[Ezra]

51 minutes ago, post said:

it's not a memorial. that is not what the scripture states.

While Scripture does not state that the sacrifices are a memorial, that can be the only logical conclusion in view of the sacrifice of Christ.  As I already mentioned by myself, we do not really know how to explain the Millennial Temple, and we are not obligated to do so either. We can simply affirm that it will be exactly as described since every prophecy must be fulfilled.

[Guest shiloh357]

56 minutes ago, post said:

no Shiloh -- maybe you only speak to "yes-men" ((and those who oppose you, you try to get banned from the topic))

No one has gotten banned for disagreeing with me.  Kan and I were debating, but Kan decided to belittle my thinking skills and THAT is what got him banned.  Had he not done that he would still be debating here.