Why did Jesus have to die?

[Steve Petersen]

The previous destruction was before the coming of the new covenant.

Is the New Covenant as described in Jeremiah 31 here in its fullness? Does everyone, from the least to the greatest know God?

 

[Inkfingers]

Is the New Covenant as described in Jeremiah 31 here in its fullness? Does everyone, from the least to the greatest know God?

Are you denying that Christ brought the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:26-27 into being? If so, you may wish to read Luke 22:20 again. What is it the cup and blood of....?

 

[Steve Petersen]

Are you denying that Christ brought the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:26-27 into being? If so, you may wish to read Luke 22:20 again. What is it the cup and blood of....?

No, I am saying he initiated it but it has not reached its fullness. It is still growing.

 

[Inkfingers]

No, I am saying he initiated it but it has not reached its fullness. It is still growing.

That doesn't stop it being the new covenant which replaces the old one when Jesus brought the old one to fulfillment, rent the veil, and brought a new temple when the old one was demolished.

 

[Steve Petersen]

That doesn't stop it being the new covenant which replaces the old one when Jesus brought the old one to fulfillment, rent the veil, and brought a new temple when the old one was demolished.

In the context of the book of Hebrews, the veil represented Christ's body (Hebrew 10:20.) The Holy Place represents This Present Age, and the Holy of Holies represents the World to Come.

 

[Inkfingers]

In the context of the book of Hebrews, the veil represented Christ's body (Hebrews 10:20.)

The Holy Place represents This Present Age, and the Holy of Holies represents the World to Come.

That's not a view I'm familiar with...

Regardless though, the Old Covenant came to an end with Christ's blood, the arrival of the new Temple (the Body of Christ), and the destruction of the old Temple. Sacrifices no longer have a role - Christ was the last sacrifice...any more slitting of sheep is not part of God's pathway set out for us.

 

[Steve Petersen]

That's not a view I'm familiar with...

Regardless though, the Old Covenant came to an end with Christ's blood, the arrival of the new Temple (the Body of Christ), and the destruction of the old Temple. Sacrifices no longer have a role - Christ was the last sacrifice...any more slitting of sheep is not part of God's pathway set out for us.

Why did Christ's death need to end sacrifice of sheep and goats? They were for a different purpose and venue.

 

[Inkfingers]

Why did Christ's death need to end sacrifice of sheep and goats? They were for a different purpose and venue.

They were filling the gap until Christ came.

 

[Steve Petersen]

They were filling the gap until Christ came.

What gap? The Torah is clear the the sheep and goats thing was about approaching God at the physical temple on earth, and for these reasons God instituted also 'various washings.' These sacrifices were NOT efficacious at all in the heavenly temple. They were not designed to be.

The ordinances of the earthly temple do not exclude the heavenly and vice versa. They are complimentary, one pertaining the This Present Age and the other to The World to Come.

 

[Inkfingers]

What gap? The Torah is clear the the sheep and goats thing was about approaching God at the physical temple on earth, and for these reasons God instituted also 'various washings.' These sacrifices were NOT efficacious at all in the heavenly temple. They were not designed to be.

The ordinances of the earthly temple do not exclude the heavenly and vice versa. They are complimentary, one pertaining the This Present Age and the other to The World to Come.

The sheep and goats were a temporary arrangement covering the time until Christ came. They never took away sin, but only covered it. Christ takes it away.

The also help show man his utter vileness without Christ (what else would you call deliberately finding the very best things and sacrificing them cover the very worst in us...but I digress).

 

[Steve Petersen]

The sheep and goats were a temporary arrangement covering the time until Christ came. They never took away sin, but only covered it. Christ takes it away.

The also help show man his utter vileness without Christ (what else would you call deliberately finding the very best things and sacrificing them cover the very worst in us...but I digress).

So you seem to be saying that the sacrifices WERE efficacious in 'covering' sin, suggesting that this covering made it possible for God to forgive the sinner and allow them into heaven after they die. Am I understanding you correctly? Hebrews makes it clear that there was no sacrifice for willful sin (10:26.) This is true. The sin offerings of the OT were only for sins of ignorance.

 

[Neogaia777]

Why did Christ's death need to end sacrifice of sheep and goats? They were for a different purpose and venue.

The sacrifices of animals never really "did anything" they merely pointed to the one and the only blood that would truly do anything or something...

God just simply chose to forgive their sins in the OT based on this (their animal sacrifices foreshadowing the coming sacrifice of the "true lamb", that actually would do something about the forgiveness of sins) God simply chose to forgive their sins in the OT based on this, because of that (the coming sacrifice of the true lamb that actually would do something) (about sins)...

But the sacrifices of animals apart from that (Christ's sacrifice) meant nothing at all, really, not apart from that (Christ's sacrifice)... That's why they are done, and are to be done away with now, completely, once and for all...

The animal sacrifices were only to foreshadow God's future sacrifice of himself, and part from that mean nothing...

I'm not understanding what you are saying about them being for a different purpose and venue, and I looked back through the threads to see if I could see it, but can't... So, could you explain that a bit please...?

God Bless!

 

[Inkfingers]

So you seem to be saying that the sacrifices WERE efficacious in 'covering' sin, suggesting that this covering made it possible for God to forgive the sinner and allow them into heaven after they die. Am I understanding you correctly?

No, and I have not said that.

They were a temporary measure. They never provide salvation. Salvation only comes with the second covenant and Christ.

 

[Steve Petersen]

No, and I have not said that.

They were a temporary measure. They never provide salvation. Salvation only comes with the second covenant and Christ.

A temporary measure that did what then?

 

[Inkfingers]

A temporary measure that did what then?

Ask God. I'm just telling you what not why.

 

[Steve Petersen]

 

[Wordkeeper]

Ask God. I'm just telling you what not why.

Law is a hebraism for the Old Covenant. The text says it was a babysitter, till the real adult caregivers , Grace, AKA, New Covenant, arrived.

It has nothing to do with salvation from Hell. In the past God ignored sins. The most likely conclusion is that the saints, if not all people are in a transitional place.

It's helpful to study what Law couldn't do:

1. No entering Rest.
2. No raising anyone higher than the least in the Kingdom.
3. No taking away of sin by the blood of bulls and goats.
4. No transformation from sons to inheritors, because the Testator hadn't died.

By deduction, the New Covenant could do this. You will see fresh new paradigms if you consider the inferior attributes of the Old Covenant. Not least the realisation that the target, destination, goal, telios, isn't heaven. It's to become blessings to the world. Adam had to subdue, tame, creation, so that God could use it, but he broke his gear. We have to fix Adam, then all can subdue, Tikkun Olam

 

[Randy777]

Someone explained it to me in this way: Christ's death filled the account that EVERYONE draws upon for forgiveness from God whether the lived in the past, present, or future. Time is not a problem for God, only for mortals.

We don't draw from a pool. We call on the one who has authority from God to give life and forgive sin. We have access to Jesus by faith but no access to any "pool" as if we could give ourselves life or don't need Jesus.

I read if you don't have the Spirit of Christ in you then you don't belong to Jesus. Jesus is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. No one enters the kingdom of God except by Him. I don't think He draws from a pool I think He was given life in Himself and has authority to give such life to anyone He pleases to give it to.

Two asked something of Him on the cross yet only one received a reply. The one who believed in Him.

No one gets to the Father except by the Son.

The ratio given for those that perish is the broad or wide path. And those who find life is the narrow path. So while there maybe many millions of Christians there are many more who don't belong to Jesus for various reasons. We have been given that those who listen and learn from the "Father" go to the Son. And Jesus stated it was His Fathers will to raise up all those that the Father has given Him on the last day.
.

 

[Steve Petersen]

We don't draw from a pool. We call on the one who has authority from God to give life and forgive sin. We have access to Jesus by faith but no access to any "pool" as if we could give ourselves life or don't need Jesus..

Another person who doesn't understand metaphor.

 

[Randy777]

Another person who doesn't understand metaphor.

Jesus is not a pool. He is a being. We don't draw on a pool and certainly not "everyone". Life is freely given for those who come to Jesus by faith. Jesus has that authority. Perhaps if you just quote Jesus,(as we understand His message), there would be less confusion with your message.

Randy