A Millennium Full Of Sacrificial Blood?

Truth7t7 · Nov 24, 2017

vinsight4u said:
Ezekiel 47:14

“And ye shall inherit it, one as well as another: concerning the which I lifted up mine hand to give it unto your fathers: and this land shall fall unto you for inheritance.”
So, chapter 48 is not about the new earth, as shown in my previous post. How about chapter 47?
the land- was given to their fathers - back when God lifted up His hand to give it to them
/again showing this is about the present earth
plus-their ancient fathers are not with them in the land - they are still waiting to be resurrected after the 7th trumpet sounds

Ezekiel 47:12 is the "Eternal Kingdom" tree and river of life are present, also seen in Revelation 22:1-5

BABerean2 · Nov 25, 2017

Daniel Martinovich said:
Oh and by the way. You seemed to have glossed over the first few words of chapter 12 verse 22. It says YOU HAVE COME to Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.

Not your going to come to, or your coming to......

Are you are advocating Full-Preterism?

When the sun consumes most of its hydrogen fuel, it will swell into a red giant and melt the surface of the earth.
Would you call that an "eternal" state?

Some aspects of the kingdom came to pass during Christ's earthly ministry.
It did not wait until 70 AD.

Mat_12:28　 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

For those who have been "born again" through the Spirit of God, there is both a present and a future aspect to the kingdom.

.

Biblewriter · Nov 25, 2017

Daniel Martinovich said:
Do the words second and coming appear anywhere in the NT in the Greek?

Those specific words do not appear together. But in Acts 1:11 the angel clearly stated to them that "this the Jesus" (houtos ho iesous) "(thus or so) shall be coming which manner" (houtos eleusetai hon tropon) they were watching him go up into heaven.

And after this event, which ended the first coming of Jesus, His coming is again mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:7 and 15:23, 1 Thessalonians 2:19, 3:13, 4:15 and 5:23, 2 Thessalonians 2:1 and 8, Hebrews 10:37, James 5:7 and 8, 2 Peter 3:4, 1 John 2:28, and in Revelation 1:7, 3:11, 16:15, and 22:12 and 20.

As all of these were after the first coming of Christ, each and every one of them is a clear reference to His second coming.

BABerean2 · Nov 25, 2017

Biblewriter said:
If God had a right to change the system of worship He will accept once, (which no one disputes) He has the right to change it again.

And where in the New Testament do we find that Calvary was not the ultimate sacrifice, when God gave not an animal, but His only Son?

If you are promoting another future covenant that will go back to some type of animal sacrifices for sin, you are promoting an idea that would be considered heretical throughout the history of the Church and would be considered heretical by many evangelical Christians today.

Do you realize this fact?

.

Daniel Martinovich · Nov 25, 2017

Biblewriter said:
Those specific words do not appear together. But in Acts 1:11 the angel clearly stated to them that "this the Jesus" (houtos ho iesous) "(thus or so) shall be coming which manner" (houtos eleusetai hon tropon) they were watching him go up into heaven.

And after this event, which ended the first coming of Jesus, His coming is again mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:7 and 15:23, 1 Thessalonians 2:19, 3:13, 4:15 and 5:23, 2 Thessalonians 2:1 and 8, Hebrews 10:37, James 5:7 and 8, 2 Peter 3:4, 1 John 2:28, and in Revelation 1:7, 3:11, 16:15, and 22:12 and 20.

As all of these were after the first coming of Christ, each and every one of them is a clear reference to His second coming.

How are they a referance to a "second" coming rather than just the coming of the Lord as the scripture refers to it?

Biblewriter · Nov 25, 2017

BABerean2 said:
And where in the New Testament do we find that Calvary was not the ultimate sacrifice, when God gave not an animal, but His only Son?

If you are promoting another future covenant that will go back to some type of animal sacrifices for sin, you are promoting an idea that would be considered heretical throughout the history of the Church and would be considered heretical by many evangelical Christians today.

Do you realize this fact?

.

I am simply pointing out what the scriptures EXPLICITLY say, as opposed to your interpretation that something else they also explicitly say, meant the first EXPLICIT statement cannot be correct. No amount of arguing can change the fact that a resumption of the practice of animal sacrifices in the future is NOT an "interpretation." It is EXPLICITLY stated in the scriptures. And nothing can change that unalterable fact.

Biblewriter · Nov 25, 2017

Daniel Martinovich said:
How are they a referance to a "second" coming rather than just the coming of the Lord as the scripture refers to it?

Because, and specifically because, they were ALL said AFTER Jesus had ALREADY come, and gone back to heaven.

To deny that Jesus is coming back is full Preterism, which is not allowed in this forum. See the rules.

Tolworth John · Nov 25, 2017

Brian Mcnamee said:
HI if you study Leviticus there were free will offerings and grains offerings of your 1st fruits and peace or friendship offerings that were not part of any sin offering.

In the millennium the kingdom of God will be on earth. Isiah 65 speaks of death still coming and youth lasting until 1000 years so we know there is no death in new Jerusalem and new heavens and earth so Isiah is speaking about the 1000 years. The they shall not hurt or do harm in my Holy mountain does not mean that we are all vegetarian in this period. I agree there is no more day of atonement or sin sacrifice.

And with Jesus present why do we need a temple or a place to make sacrifices?

Are you saying that we will only be able to worship God/Jesus by physically going to where ever he is and worshipping him there?

Biblewriter · Nov 25, 2017

Tolworth John said:
And with Jesus present why do we need a temple or a place to make sacrifices?

Are you saying that we will only be able to worship God/Jesus by physically going to where ever he is and worshipping him there?

This temple is not even for "us." While the timing of the rapture is a subject for legitimate debate, the fact that it will take place is not. Anyone who denies that there will be a rapture is denying explicitly stated scripture. And NO theory on the timing of the rapture puts it after Christ comes in power and glory to judge the world for its wickedness.

And the scriptures very explicitly tell us that when that event takes place, whenever that happens, we will all be changed into a different sort of existence.

But this future worship takes place after that time. The people described at that time will live a very long time, but there will still be death. Although that SEEMS to take place only as a punishment for sin. They will also have children, which of course, means marriage, when it happens without sin, which will ot be tolerated at that time.

Now we are explicitly told that "in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage." (Matthew 22:30, Luke 20:35) So this can not even possibly refer to people in the resurrected state. it is another people, another time, and another form of worship.

It would be difficult to overstress the fact that, even as the worship described is different from that which our God accepts today, it is also different from that He specified in the law He gave through Moses. This is NOT a return to the Old system, but something entirely New, different from Both systems previously set up by God.

Tolworth John · Nov 25, 2017

Biblewriter said:
This temple is not even for "us."

So if it is not for us we aren't required to offer sacrifices there.
As Leviticus says the worshipper presents his offering at the alter, which means having access into the temple.

Who is the temple for?

SeventyOne · Nov 25, 2017

Truth7t7 said:
You believe and teach in error that God will bless future animal sacrifice in a temple in Jerusalem?

OK lion, don't hurt the lamb, we need to save him and cut his throat, make him bleed on a temple altar, while Jesus who shed his blood for the sins of the world, sits on a throne in Jerusalem and watches in approval?

Isaiah 66:3 tell's you exactly what God Thinks of future animal sacrifice and the shedding of blood an "Abomination"!

You disregard God's very clear words in Isaiah 66:3

That's funny because I'm not the one trying to ignore a portion of scripture.

SeventyOne · Nov 25, 2017

jgr said:
So then the answers should be trivially easy.

Hebrews 10
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

What is the first?
What is the second?

You've already made a case for millennial sacrifices. Why turn back now? And once again, I've never said a reason for the sacrifices, just that I read about their return and choose to believe what it says. I'm sorry you choose to not believe, but that's between you and Him.

SeventyOne · Nov 25, 2017

BABerean2 said:
Heb 10:8　 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;　
Heb 10:9　 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.　
Heb 10:10　 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.　
Heb 10:11　 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:　
Heb 10:12　 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;　
Heb 10:13　 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.　
Heb 10:14　 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.　
Heb 10:15　 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,　
Heb 10:16　 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;　(From Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled in Hebrews 8:6-13.)
Heb 10:17　 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.　
Heb 10:18　 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.　

.

Ok. That has zero to to with that part of the conversation.

Biblewriter · Nov 25, 2017

Tolworth John said:
So if it is not for us we aren't required to offer sacrifices there.
As Leviticus says the worshipper presents his offering at the alter, which means having access into the temple.

Who is the temple for?

I will be for the people living on the earth at that time, AFTER we are gone.

Tolworth John · Nov 25, 2017

Biblewriter said:
I will be for the people living on the earth at that time, AFTER we are gone.

Why will they need a temple?
It doesn't matter when or where people are born or live. They will all need saving faith in Jesus.
Therefore a temple is surplus to requirements.

jgr · Nov 25, 2017

Biblewriter said:
I am simply pointing out what the scriptures EXPLICITLY say, as opposed to your interpretation that something else they also explicitly say, meant the first EXPLICIT statement cannot be correct. No amount of arguing can change the fact that a resumption of the practice of animal sacrifices in the future is NOT an "interpretation." It is EXPLICITLY stated in the scriptures. And nothing can change that unalterable fact.

Did God EXPLICITLY state the following?

2 Corinthians 1
20 For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

Galatians 3
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Hebrews 1
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Hebrews 8
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Hebrews 9
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Hebrews 10
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Did God know what He had explicitly stated in the Old Covenant when in Hebrews 10:9 of the New Covenant He stated that He "took away the first that He may establish the second"?

He certainly did know.

But He still stated Hebrews 10:9.

If He stated that He took away the first to establish the second, then only the second stands and remains, and only what is explicitly stated in and about the second is in force and effect.

God knew and knows what He said and says.

Explicitly.

Biblewriter · Nov 25, 2017

Tolworth John said:
Why will they need a temple?
It doesn't matter when or where people are born or live. They will all need saving faith in Jesus.
Therefore a temple is surplus to requirements.

take that up with the Holy Spirit. he is the one who said it. I am simply pointing out what He EXPLICITLY said.

Biblewriter · Nov 25, 2017

jgr said:
Did God EXPLICITLY state the following?

2 Corinthians 1
20 For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

Galatians 3
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Hebrews 1
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Hebrews 8
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Hebrews 9
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Hebrews 10
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Did God know what He had explicitly stated in the Old Covenant when in Hebrews 10:9 of the New Covenant He stated that He "took away the first that He may establish the second"?

He certainly did know.

But He still stated Hebrews 10:9.

If He stated that He took away the first to establish the second, then only the second stands and remains, and only what is explicitly stated in and about the second is in force and effect.

God knew and knows what He said and says.

Explicitly.

Yes, God very explicitly said ALL of these. And not even one of them says that what He said earlier is not true.

You are trying to use your interpretations of the meanings of some of what God said, to avoid other things that He also said. This does not work.

Only Dispensationalism fully accepts everything God said as absolute truth. All other systems of interpretation reject some of what Gd said.

A Millennium Full Of Sacrificial Blood?

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Senior Member

Newbie

Friend

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads