Messianics and Dispensationalism

[mercy1061]

Exactly the point. Since the Abrahamic covenant precedes the Mosaic and the Abrahamic covenant is unconditional and perpetual. No matter 'what happens' the Abrahamic covenant would still exist and apply as in Land, seed and blessing.

What you call the "Abrahamic covenant" is apart of the Torah of Moses. I do not seek to seperate Moses from Abraham; in fact Moses wrote the book of genesis, exodus, leviticus, numbers, deuteronomy. All five books are called the law of Moses.

 

[Hoshiyya]

Are all Messianics also Dispensationlists?

Difficult question, since they see it as a negative label they wouldn't self-identify as such even if it were the case . . . it's like asking if Mormons are monotheist. They'll say they are just because they think the word sounds nice. Even those who think their God has limitations will call him "omnipotent" for the same reason, it's just something you do.

 

[Hoshiyya]

Revelation comes after the Messianic Age. In the Messianic Age there will be a Temple.

People mix up millennial (3rd temple, perfect form of this world) and post-millennial (new heavens and new earth, no temple, New Jerusalem) all the time . . . many are insulted or alienated by the very idea of these being two separate future ages. Especially Amillennialists. Don't even get me started on the Catholic view of the Revelation of John and the millennium (or the 'golden age' as they like to say.)

 

[Messianic Jewboy]

What you call the "Abrahamic covenant" is apart of the Torah of Moses. I do not seek to seperate Moses from Abraham; in fact Moses wrote the book of genesis, exodus, leviticus, numbers, deuteronomy. All five books are called the law of Moses.

Not according to Gal 3:17, the Law was added to the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant.

 

[mercy1061]

But we were talking about death, for sin. Christ did not suffer death for his own sin. Wrongly or not, he died. That was the point. At least it originally was.

Was Isaac placed on the altar because of his own sin? Did the "perfect" lambs of the old testament that were slain, were those lambs slain because of their own sin? This is the ministry of the levite priests; the inocent lambs slain NOT because of their own sin. There is really nothing new under the sun, what has been done has already been done BEFORE.

As you say, that was before they became restricted to the temple.

Contrary to popular mainstream christian oppinion, "Temple worship" is still required. The sons of Abraham must do the works of Abraham.

Romans 12
I exhort you, therefore, brothers, in view of God’s mercies, to offer yourselves as a sacrifice, living and set apart for God. This will please him; it is the logical “Temple worship” for you.

Again, the this the same issue as him suffering death. Just as he died for our sins, and not his own. So, too Sacrifices became limited to the temple

.

All sacrifices were performed; not because the sacrifice had sinned. The law of Moses is my witness to this fact. The living sacrifice was always innocent without disease.

Levitical sacrifices are unable to be performed apart from the temple. without being guilty as the scripture says. That is what the law of Moses says.

The levitical sacrifice is a CONTINUATION of the Abrahamic covenant. Abraham was a priest and a prince. Abraham offered Isaac on the altar to become a burnt offering; yet Abraham replaced Isaac with the ram caught in the bush. Therefore, a burnt offering is still required. No levite priest served as king or prince.

If you think you can do something because someone else has done it, I do not know what else to say. I mean, the high priest also went into the holy of holies too. Lot's of people did lots of things.

You must judge righteously; when Abraham, Isaac and Jacob walked the earth there was no holy of holies. We know his name for all generations, "G-d of Abraham, G-d of Isaac, G-d of Jacob"!

I do not believe, temple sacrifices can be performed without a temple, as they were restricted to the temple. If you believe otherwise, so be it.
As you have acknowledged Levitical sacrifices were limited to the temple, but say you can do them anyway.

I did not say this. I said sacrifices were limited to the temple, however Moses made sacrifice in the dessert, BEFORE Pharoah let the hebrews go.
Do you wish Israel to receive rest from their enemies?

You acknowledge all men suffer death because of their sin. Yet you skirt this issue with Christ having died and why.
So, there is nothing more I have to say to you.
Shalom

I did not "skirt" any issue; it is written in the law of Moses why the lamb died; the lamb died NOT because the lamb had sinned. So I do not understand this "foreign" doctrine that you are teaching. Every ancient jew knows that the lamb was always innocent, the lamb had to be perfect without spot or blemish. Do you remember how Jacob cared for Laban sheep?

Gen 30
32 I will also go through the flock and pick out every speckled, spotted or brown sheep, and every speckled or spotted goat; these and their offspring will be my wages.

Do you understand that speckled, spotted or brown sheep and every speckled or spotted goat are not fit for sacrifice? Jacob's flock was strong, Laban's flock was weak. You have so much to learn.

 

[visionary]

Isaiah 13:6-10 Wail, for the day of HaShem is near; it will come like destruction from the Almighty. Because of this, all hands will go limp, every man’s heart will melt. Terror will seize them, pain and anguish will grip them; they will writhe like a woman in labor. They will look aghast at each other, their faces aflame. See, the day of HaShem is coming--a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger--to make the land desolate and destroy the sinners within it. The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light.

Pleiades is the Septuagint translation of:
3598 Kiymah, kee-maw’; from the same as 3558; a cluster of stars, i.e. the Pleiadesleiades, seven stars.

Think about Revelation where Yeshua is found in the midst of the seven stars.

So when is the end of Pisces and the beginning of the age of Aquarius? The Age of Aquarius is not part of astronomy. It’s an astrological age, which occurs because of a real motion of Earth known as the procession of the equinoxes, which, for example, causes the identity of the pole star to change over time. The cycle of procession lasts 25,800 years, and there are 12 constellations of the Mazzaroth. So, roughly every 2,150 years, the sun’s position at the time of the March, or vernal, equinox moves in front of a new Mazzaroth constellation. The Age of Aquarius begins when the March equinox point moves out of the constellation Pisces and into the constellation Aquarius.

The International Astronomical Union (IAU) – which in the 20th century assumed the duty of officially naming and defining all things astronomical – created official constellation boundaries in 1930. From the perspective of astronomy, then, the beginning of the Age of Aquarius is based upon IAU constellation boundaries. According to the Belgian astronomer and mathematical wizard Jean Meeus (bio here), who does adhere to the IAU’s definitions, the sun at the March equinox passed from being in front of the constellation Aries and to being in front of the constellation Pisces in 68 B.C. Some astrologers say the Age of Aquarius actually began in 2012. That’s because they believe the star Regulus in the constellation Leo the Lion marked the ancient border between the constellations Leo and Cancer. This star moved to within 30o of the September equinox point in 2012, meaning that Regulus left the sign Leo to enter the sign Virgo in that year. Presuming equal-sized constellations in antiquity, that places the border of the constellations Pisces and Aquarius at 150o west of Regulus, or at the March equinox point. By this reckoning, the Age of Aquarius started in 2012.

appointed times are established "IN" the firmament

 

[annier]

So Revelation has been fulfilled already? The New Jerusalem is here and now? The second coming has happened?

No, I do not think the second coming has happened. I do believe he has already entered the heavenly temple though.

Judgement has taken place and hell is full of those who oppose G_d and we are the ones who have our new home and new body in eternity?

Avodat, I never said anything about this? I do believe Christ is officiating in the heavenly temple already.

We are really living in the times when all worship G_d and the Elders fall down and worship him etc etc.,? The Babylonian harlot is dead and the apocalypse has happened - those who died in the faith are really those of us who are now alive? There are sinners in the New Jerusalem and we need to continue to evangelise the inhabitants of the City - why?

I do not know what else to say to your questions. I do not really want to get in trouble for violating the rules here. So I can only answer so far. But I do believe Christ has entered the true tabernacle in heaven already. The one that the Levitical tabernacle was patterned after.

Did I fall asleep and miss something?

LOL, I don't know.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Messianics and Dispensationalism

Are all Messianics also Dispensationlists?

Everything you wanted to know about Dispensationalism/Zionism but were afraid to ask....and for good reason!


Dispensationalism
DISPENSATIONALISM

Dispensational Approach to Interpreting the Bible


When one allows God himself to interpret the meaning of his prophecies through later revelation, it becomes impossible to employ a naturalistic, Dispensational hermeneutic. Dispensationalists claim to have a literal hermeneutic, taking prophecies in a simple, material sense unless the immediate context demands otherwise.

The problem with this approach is that it arrives at interpretations [...]............................





.
.

 

[Avodat]

Originally Posted by mpossoff

Revelation comes after the Messianic Age. In the Messianic Age there will be a Temple.

Are you side-stepping my question: 'so what marks the Messianic Age - beginning and end?'

 

[Avodat]

Pleiades is the Septuagint translation of:
3598 Kiymah, kee-maw’; from the same as 3558; a cluster of stars, i.e. the Pleiadesleiades, seven stars.

Think about Revelation where Yeshua is found in the midst of the seven stars.

So when is the end of Pisces and the beginning of the age of Aquarius? The Age of Aquarius is not part of astronomy. It’s an astrological age, which occurs because of a real motion of Earth known as the procession of the equinoxes, which, for example, causes the identity of the pole star to change over time. The cycle of procession lasts 25,800 years, and there are 12 constellations of the Mazzaroth. So, roughly every 2,150 years, the sun’s position at the time of the March, or vernal, equinox moves in front of a new Mazzaroth constellation. The Age of Aquarius begins when the March equinox point moves out of the constellation Pisces and into the constellation Aquarius.

The International Astronomical Union (IAU) – which in the 20th century assumed the duty of officially naming and defining all things astronomical – created official constellation boundaries in 1930. From the perspective of astronomy, then, the beginning of the Age of Aquarius is based upon IAU constellation boundaries. According to the Belgian astronomer and mathematical wizard Jean Meeus (bio here), who does adhere to the IAU’s definitions, the sun at the March equinox passed from being in front of the constellation Aries and to being in front of the constellation Pisces in 68 B.C. Some astrologers say the Age of Aquarius actually began in 2012. That’s because they believe the star Regulus in the constellation Leo the Lion marked the ancient border between the constellations Leo and Cancer. This star moved to within 30o of the September equinox point in 2012, meaning that Regulus left the sign Leo to enter the sign Virgo in that year. Presuming equal-sized constellations in antiquity, that places the border of the constellations Pisces and Aquarius at 150o west of Regulus, or at the March equinox point. By this reckoning, the Age of Aquarius started in 2012.

Or in the mid to late 1960s with flower power

 

[Messianic Jewboy]

Originally Posted by mpossoff


Are you side-stepping my question: 'so what marks the Messianic Age - beginning and end?'

Side stepping intentionally? No I am not. What starts the Messianic Age is when Israel calls 'blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord'.

 

[Avodat]

Side stepping intentionally? No I am not. What starts the Messianic Age is when Israel calls 'blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord'.

So how do you know that is pre-Revelation?

 

[intojoy]

Here's an honest question. I know that many will never be persuaded from their position so if you would help me understand yours a little better. If the heavens are destroyed then God will allow Israel to cease to exist as one brother shared here, why do some feel that the Torah is when the Jewish people became Jews? I think Abraham is the first Jew, and what of Abraham's laws?
because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws." (Genesis 26:5 NASB)

 

[visionary]

Viewing scripture through the indoctrinated lens of dispensationalism has become the most common theological framework in mainstream Christianity it is not upheld here in the Messianic corner.

 

[Hoshiyya]

Here's an honest question. I know that many will never be persuaded from their position so if you would help me understand yours a little better. If the heavens are destroyed then God will allow Israel to cease to exist as one brother shared here, why do some feel that the Torah is when the Jewish people became Jews? I think Abraham is the first Jew, and what of Abraham's laws?
because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws." (Genesis 26:5 NASB)

By that standard, isn't Adam the first Jew, for the duration of the time he was in Eden without sinning?
Or if not him, for some reason, then Enoch or Noah ?

Of course, to me, Jew "just" means descendant of Judah.
To me, God doesn't treat Adam and Noah and Moses the Levite and you and me differently. There is one law, one human race. Anything else is to some degree dispensationalism, I think.

 

[intojoy]

By that standard, isn't Adam the first Jew, for the duration of the time he was in Eden without sinning?
Or if not him, for some reason, then Enoch or Noah ?

Of course, to me, Jew "just" means descendant of Judah.
To me, God doesn't treat Adam and Noah and Moses the Levite and you and me differently. There is one law, one human race. Anything else is to some degree dispensationalism, I think.

Well the laws Adam had differ from Noah, at least capital punishment and the eating of animals. Laws of God appear to change according to His timing throughout the historical record of the bible do they not?

 

[Hoshiyya]

Well the laws Adam had differ from Noah, at least capital punishment and the eating of animals. Laws of God appear to change according to His timing throughout the historical record of the bible do they not?

Not so sure about that myself - - -

but like I say, and like the first question in this thread seems to suspect, it seems ultimately all Messianics are to whatever degree dispensational. God certainly has the right to abrogate as he pleases, though it may or may not put us in a difficult position to defend sometimes.

 

[annier]

Not according to Gal 3:17, the Law was added to the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant.

Ga 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

Ge 17:21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

The law was added because of Sin. I do not understand how the law can be added to the Abrahamic covenant made in Genesis 17? Perhaps that made with him in Genesis 15, concerning the fourth Generation, but not Genesis 17. Was that not established in Isaac, and Jacob?

 

[Hoshiyya]

How can the law be added? Did not Adam keep it, long before Abraham was born?
Did he not, in fact, keep it until he kept it no more, and was exiled from the garden?

 

[Yahudim]

*snip*​

I do not believe, temple sacrifices can be performed without a temple, as they were restricted to the temple. If you believe otherwise, so be it.

*snip*​

Just as an informational post. After the Temple was destroyed, the priests continued making sacrifices at that location upon the bare rock; as it was the location that was specified in scripture, not the building.