A Millennium Full Of Sacrificial Blood?

God bless Joshua said:

As a remembrance of Him being sacrificed on cross.

Click to expand...

A sacrifice is not an act of remembrance.
The poster is promoting building a temple and offering sacrifices on an alter.
As Hebrews says Jesus sacrificed himself Once for All.
In other words to restarting sacrifices of animals is saying I don't trust in Jesus's sacrifice.

Tolworth John said:

In other words to restarting sacrifices of animals is saying I don't trust in Jesus's sacrifice.

Click to expand...

Why do you assume the purpose of the sacrifices is to challenge the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Jesus?

God bless Joshua said:

Why would God demand that people in Millennium should celebrate the Feast of Tabernacle ?

Zech 14:16 Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, and to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles.

Because its a commemoration of the time when
God led the Hebrew out of Egypt and they dwelt in tents during their passage through the wilderness to the promised land and they must built a Tabernacle for God to appear as Shekinah Glory to protect them.

Animals offerings was first sacrificed at the Tabernacle of God in the desert in the middle of their booths.


Animals sacrifices in the Tabernacle will be brought back into Millennium as its one set of Hebrew's experience living in the booth at the desert.

So that newly born people in Millennium can begin to appreciate the awesome purpose and meaning of Christ’s Sacrifice and how God looks at sin.

I hope you have caught the picture.

Click to expand...

The details of the feast of tabernacles can be found in numbers 29:12-39. Each day of the feast requires a SIN OFFERING.

The author of Hebrews makes it very clear that:
Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
Hebrews 10:18

By saying we will be required to partake in future animal sacrifices (sin offerings) during the feast of tabernacles in a future time, you are thereby indirectly saying there is no forgiveness of sin. This is a false gospel.

God bless Joshua said:

Why would God demand that people in Millennium should celebrate the Feast of Tabernacle ?

Click to expand...

This is an assumption made by your interpretation of scripture. You are assuming Zechariah is talking about a literal future millennial celebration of the feast of tabernacles with animal sacrifices (sin offerings)

However, this directly conflicts with the work of Christ, who was the final sin offering.

he entered once for all into the Holy Place, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.
Hebrews 9:12

If it is eternal, then there is no need for more sin offerings.

Thus your assumption about a literal interpretation of future millennial animal sacrifices is not just wrong, but a mocking of the sacrifice of Christ.

SeventyOne said:

Why do you assume the purpose of the sacrifices is to challenge the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Jesus?

Click to expand...

Feast of tabernacle requires a sin offering every day of the feast. Therefore if we celebrate it in the future we will be required to perform sin offerings


for then he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Hebrews 9:26

Christ removed sin by his sacrifice. To say that we must perform animal sin offerings in the future is to say that sin wasn’t removed by Christ sacrifice and there is no forgiveness of sins.

Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
Hebrews 10:18.

To preach that would be a false gospel.

claninja said:

By saying we will be required to partake in future animal sacrifices (sin offerings) during the feast of tabernacles in a future time, you are thereby indirectly saying there is no forgiveness of sin. This is a false gospel.

Click to expand...

Why do you assume that's what's being implied? Aren't you forcing your assumption on the text? The text doesn't say what you are implying it means. You've made yourself judge over that portion of Zechariah. It's far more likely that you are wrong than it is wrong.

SeventyOne said:

Why do you assume that's what's being implied? Aren't you forcing your assumption on the text? The text doesn't say what you are implying it means. You've made yourself judge over that portion of Zechariah. It's far more likely that you are wrong than it is wrong.

Click to expand...

What assumption has been made specifically?

claninja said:

Feast of tabernacle requires a sin offering every day of the feast. Therefore if we celebrate it in the future we will be required to perform sin offerings


for then he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Hebrews 9:26

Christ removed sin by his sacrifice. To say that we must perform animal sin offerings in the future is to say that sin wasn’t removed by Christ sacrifice and there is no forgiveness of sins.

Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
Hebrews 10:18.

To preach that would be a false gospel.

Click to expand...

If you assume the sacrifices are in competition with the finished work of Jesus. You have to make that point from the text demonstrating the millennial sacrifices, that they are indeed competition. All I have is your assumption concerning their purpose then your reasoning based on your own assumption.

claninja said:

What assumption has been made specifically?

Click to expand...

That the purpose of the millennial sacrifices is assumed to be for the purpose of making up for the final sacrifice of Jesus.

That's an assumption not supported by the text.

SeventyOne said:

If you assume the sacrifices are in competition with the finished work of Jesus. You have to make that point from the text demonstrating the millennial sacrifices, that they are indeed competition. All I have is your assumption concerning their purpose then your reasoning based on your own assumption.

Click to expand...

I don’t have to assume the purpose of the sacrifice. Numbers 29:12-40 gives us the details of what is required each day and directly states a sin offering is required each day of the feast of tabernacle.

The competition is clearly seen in Hebrews 9-10.

Specifically:
Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
Hebrews 10:18

If there is still required sin offerings, then there is no forgiveness.

SeventyOne said:

That the purpose of the millennial sacrifices is assumed to be for the purpose of making up for the final sacrifice of Jesus.

That's an assumption not supported by the text.

Click to expand...

Sin offerings are no longer necessary if there is forgiveness

Therefore, if sin offerings are required, there is no forgiveness

This is not an assumption.

claninja said:

I don’t have to assume the purpose of the sacrifice. Numbers 29:12-40 gives us the details of what is required each day and directly states a sin offering is required each day of the feast of tabernacle.

The competition is clearly seen in Hebrews 9-10.

Specifically:
Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
Hebrews 10:18

If there is still required sin offerings, then there is no forgiveness.

Click to expand...

Actually you do, because the sacrifices in Numbers was in a different era than the sacrifices in Zechariah 14. I know some people recoil at the mention of this word, but it's a completely different dispensation in scope.
You can either demonstrate from the text these have the same purpose, or you have to assume it.

claninja said:

Sin offerings are no longer necessary if there is forgiveness

Therefore, if sin offerings are required, there is no forgiveness

This is not an assumption.

Click to expand...

No one is refuting that. But again, it's your assumption on the purposes of the future sacrifices that is an in question. Clearly prove that is the purpose of the future sacrifices.

SeventyOne said:

Why do you assume the purpose of the sacrifices is to challenge the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Jesus?

Click to expand...

We have communion with which to 'remember' Jesus's sacrifice.
So why reintroduce an un necessary ritual into Christian life and worship.

Tolworth John said:

We have communion with which to 'remember' Jesus's sacrifice.
So why reintroduce an un necessary ritual into Christian life and worship.

Click to expand...

It's not like Christians are reintroducing anything. No one is trying to bring it back. This is simply where some recognize the scriptures state there will be future sacrifices, while some do not recognize it.

SeventyOne said:

Why do you assume that's what's being implied? Aren't you forcing your assumption on the text? The text doesn't say what you are implying it means. You've made yourself judge over that portion of Zechariah. It's far more likely that you are wrong than it is wrong.

Click to expand...

Because the Book of Hebrews makes it clear that Christ is the final sacrifice and that He is the temple of God, not just in one verse, but in many.
There is nothing in the Book of Revelation or the rest of the New Testament which even implies that animals will be sacrificed in the future.

However, you insist that your interpretation of Old Testament passages requires that the One who conquered sin and death at Calvary is to sit in a carnal temple, in a carnal city, where animals will have their throats cut for a blood sacrifice, but you say it is not a sacrifice for sin.

We have another person on this forum who claims that the New Covenant is really not the "everlasting covenant" found in Hebrews 13:20 and that at some future point in time God will bring in another covenant with animal sacrifices for sin.
And once again even though none of this is found in the New Testament, he claims it is found in the Old Testament.

Error, begets error.


Those who promote the Two Peoples of God doctrine will never get it right, because they have run off the road of Emmaus and into the ditch.

.

SeventyOne said:

It's not like Christians are reintroducing anything. No one is trying to bring it back. This is simply where some recognize the scriptures state there will be future sacrifices, while some do not recognize it.

Click to expand...

So if Christians aren't going to build and operate the temple who is?

Revelation talks of a new Jerusalem, where there is no temple in it, why then will Christians in the future need to build a temple?

BABerean2 said:

Because the Book of Hebrews makes it clear that Christ is the final sacrifice and that He is the temple of God, not just in one verse, but in many.
There is nothing in the Book of Revelation or the rest of the New Testament which even implies that animals will be sacrificed in the future.

However, you insist that your interpretation of Old Testament passages requires that the One who conquered sin and death at Calvary is to sit in a carnal temple, in a carnal city, where animals will have their throats cut for a blood sacrifice, but you say it is not a sacrifice for sin.

We have another person on this forum who claims that the New Covenant is really not the "everlasting covenant" found in Hebrews 13:20 and that at some future point in time God will bring in another covenant with animal sacrifices for sin.
And once again even though none of this is found in the New Testament, he claims it is found in the Old Testament.

Error, begets error.


Those who promote the Two Peoples of God doctrine will never get it right, because they have run off the road of Emmaus and into the ditch.

.

Click to expand...

If you would like to show us where it states the millennial sacrifices are for sin for the purposes of supplementing the sacrifice of Jesus, then please do so. Otherwise, live with knowing you and others like you are passing on your assumptions at truth.

And I'm not about to accept the charges of 'error' from someone who pushes replacement theology every chance they get. You wouldn't know error if it walked up and bit you.

SeventyOne said:

Actually you do, because the sacrifices in Numbers was in a different era than the sacrifices in Zechariah 14. I know some people recoil at the mention of this word, but it's a completely different dispensation in scope.
You can either demonstrate from the text these have the same purpose, or you have to assume it.

Click to expand...

SeventyOne said:

No one is refuting that. But again, it's your assumption on the purposes of the future sacrifices that is an in question. Clearly prove that is the purpose of the future sacrifices.

Click to expand...

I guess it depends when the 1000 year millennial kingdom takes place. If it is during the current heaven and earth then the purpose of the sacrifice will be exactly as described in the book of Numbers 29:13-40:

Matthew 5:18
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.


However, if according to Jesus, that not one iota or jot of the law would not change until heaven and earth pass away, I guess then we could assume the purpose of the sacrifices could be changed in the new heavens and new earth.

SeventyOne said:

Clearly prove that is the purpose of the future sacrifices.

Click to expand...

Why would I assume the purpose of the animal sacrifices in the future are no longer about sin offerings, when the Bible no where says that the purpose of animal sacrifices will change in the future, except possibly in matthew 5:18? Additionally, I don't believe in future animal sacrificing, so I don't need to prove it. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim.

Tolworth John said:

So if Christians aren't going to build and operate the temple who is?

Revelation talks of a new Jerusalem, where there is no temple in it, why then will Christians in the future need to build a temple?

Click to expand...

Again, not the proper question. First, the New Jerusalem isn't the earthly Jerusalem. It's like saying the city of York is invalid because it doesn't have a Times Square like New York does. They aren't the same location.

Second, The scripture tells us plainly in Zechariah 6:12-13, "Thus says the LORD of hosts, “Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall branch out from his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. It is he who shall build the temple of the LORD and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his throne." Then we are told in verse 15, "And those who are far off shall come and help to build the temple of the LORD."

The Lord builds it, and other come to help. And then notice he sits in the temple he build and rules from a throne. The proper question is really, do we believe what it says or not. I really think trying to explain this stuff away as some on here long to do, really shows either ignorance or distrust in what the text states. They simply think it needs to bow to their own understanding, rather than their understanding bowing to it.

claninja said:

I guess it depends when the 1000 year millennial kingdom takes place. If it is during the current heaven and earth then the purpose of the sacrifice will be exactly as described in the book of Numbers 29:13-40:

Matthew 5:18
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.


However, if according to Jesus, that not one iota or jot of the law would not change until heaven and earth pass away, I guess then we could assume the purpose of the sacrifices could be changed in the new heavens and new earth.



Why would I assume the purpose of the animal sacrifices in the future are no longer about sin offerings, when the Bible no where says that the purpose of animal sacrifices will changes in the future? Additionally, I don't believe in future animal sacrificing, so I don't need to prove it. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim.

Click to expand...

You are correct the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim, which is why I'm asking you to support your assumption. If you can't support it, at least admit it's only your theory and not a fact.

As far as when it is, let's read the surrounding context to find out:

Verses 2 and 3. Has the Lord gather the armies against Jerusalem then Himself go out and fight, conquering those armies? Nope.

Verse 4. Has the Lord planted His feet on the Mount of Olives yet, splitting it into two yet. Nope.

Verse 8. Are there waters flowing out of Jerusalem yet, half to the east and half to the west yet? Nope. Is the summer there the same weather as the winter? Nope.

Verse 10. Has the whole land surrounding Jerusalem been lowered to the level of a great plain yet? Nope.

Verse 11. Has Jerusalem come to a point where it will live in a perpetual state of security forever? Nope.

Verse 16. Do all the families of the nations go up to Jerusalem each year to celebrate the Feast of Booths yet? Nope.

Seems yet to be fulfilled to me.