A Millennium Full Of Sacrificial Blood?

[BABerean2]

But when you chose to ignore the changes God has made in the past, in the methods He has specified for worship, you render yourself unable to understand the changes He has already declared that He will make in the future.

I readily acknowledge the changes God has made in the past, and one of those changes was to eliminate animal sacrifices, through the New Covenant sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ at Calvary.

To claim that God will in the future return to blood sacrifices for sin is to rip the whole New Testament out of the Bible and return to Judaism.
It is the same goal of those who want to rebuild a temple in Jerusalem and restart animal sacrifices.

This claim exposes modern Dispensational Theology for what it really is.

.

 

[Biblewriter]

I readily acknowledge the changes God has made in the past, and one of those changes was to eliminate animal sacrifices, through the New Covenant sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ at Calvary.

To claim that God will in the future return to blood sacrifices for sin is to rip the whole New Testament out of the Bible and return to Judaism.
It is the same goal of those who want to rebuild a temple in Jerusalem and restart animal sacrifices.

This claim exposes modern Dispensational Theology for what it really is.

.

Here you are ignoring the fact that the sacrifices and ordinances in Ezekiel are different from those in the Law of Moses. This is not a return to the old law, but something new and different.

But what is far worse than that, is that you are flatly denying explicitly stated scripture. God has explicitly said this will take place. and we know it has never taken place. So, either God lied, or it will take place in the future.

 

[mark kennedy]

Many falsely teach there will be a future millennial kingdom on this earth, where a Jewish priest will sacrifice animals in a temple in Jerusalem.

These same people use Isaiah 65 as a proof text of this millennial kingdom.

How do these people justify this teaching, when Isaiah 65:25 clearly teaches there will be no hurt or destruction in the kingdom seen?

Isaiah 65:25KJV
The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord.

How do these people justify animal sacrifice, in the kingdom seen in Isaiah 65?

Yes the kingdom seen is eternal, and there will be no animal sacrifice, for Jesus Christ was the perfect Lamb of God!

Jesus Christ Is Lord

Truth7t7

I had never noticed that before, thanks for pointing that out. I was never comfortable with the Jews returning to blood sacrifices in the Millennial Kingdom. I think you could make a pretty strong argument based just on this line of reasoning that they won't. It's suggested that they do, in some isolated texts. I haven't really tossed the idea but it seems pretty inconsistent with a statement that 'they shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain'.

 

[Tree of Life]

I think the "living waters" can be associated to any and all locations God desires. Since at that time there is an earthly temple containing a throne on which Jesus will rule from from 1,000 years, and the Lord is called the fountain of living waters, it's not a stretch at all to associate it with the earthly Jerusalem as well.

If you can take "living waters" to be symbolic in this text, why can't you take "Jerusalem" to be symbolic?

 

[SeventyOne]

If you can take "living waters" to be symbolic in this text, why can't you take "Jerusalem" to be symbolic?

The context won't allow for it. It is very specific about it and the surrounding areas as being actual earthly locations. Besides, why do you think I am taking it as symbolic? Something is said to flow both to the east and to the west, and it calls the substance 'living waters'.

Just because I don't know what it is, doesn't mean it isn't a thing. Nobelium is an element listed on the periodic table of elements. I don't know a thing about it other than it's on the list. I have no clue what it looks like, smells like, or even if it's a solid matter or not. Just because I don't know it's physical properties doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that I should just understand it as chemical symbolism.

 

[Tree of Life]

The context won't allow for it. It is very specific about it and the surrounding areas as being actual earthly locations. Besides, why do you think I am taking it as symbolic? Something is said to flow both to the east and to the west, and it calls the substance 'living waters'.

You seemed to suggest that "living waters" refers to the Lord. Do you believe the Lord is literally made of water?

 

[mark kennedy]

You seemed to suggest that "living waters" refers to the Lord. Do you believe the Lord is literally made of water?

The waters are literal, there is no serious question about that. Living waters can be used figuratively or literally, just depends on the context.

 

[SeventyOne]

You seemed to suggest that "living waters" refers to the Lord. Do you believe the Lord is literally made of water?

Silly question. That's like asking me if I think Jesus was an actual lamb. The Lord is referred to multiple times as the fountain of living waters.

Do your own word studies. Sometimes it's used literally and sometimes symbolically, just like the word 'lamb'.

 

[BABerean2]

Here you are ignoring the fact that the sacrifices and ordinances in Ezekiel are different from those in the Law of Moses. This is not a return to the old law, but something new and different.

But what is far worse than that, is that you are flatly denying explicitly stated scripture. God has explicitly said this will take place. and we know it has never taken place. So, either God lied, or it will take place in the future.

You seem to be suggesting that the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and specifically applied to the Church in Hebrews 12:22-24, and 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, is really not an "everlasting" covenant as found in Hebrews 13:20.

And you seem to believe this because you say God will use another covenant in the future, which is not the Sinai Covenant, nor the New Covenant of Christ announced at the Last Supper in Matthew 26:28.

Therefore, you seem to be saying that the New Covenant fulfilled by the Son of God at Calvary is to be replaced by another covenant in the future, which will use animal sacrifices for sin.

Is this what you are claiming?

.

 

[jgr]

I'm referring to the sacrifices mentioned in Zechariah, but it does seem odd that you declare they shouldn't exist by citing a passage where they do exist and also gives a purpose contrary to your claim. Did you intend to shoot down your own argument, or are you just deflecting?

Dispensationalism claims that futurized OT sacrifices are memorial offerings, not sin offerings.

Ezekiel 45:22 identifies them as sin offerings.

 

[Tree of Life]

Silly question. That's like asking me if I think Jesus was an actual lamb. The Lord is referred to multiple times as the fountain of living waters.

Do your own word studies. Sometimes it's used literally and sometimes symbolically, just like the word 'lamb'.

So if "living waters" can be taken symbolically in this passage why can't "Jerusalem" be taken symbolically?

 

[Tree of Life]

The waters are literal, there is no serious question about that. Living waters can be used figuratively or literally, just depends on the context.

Which literal living water flows in or around Jerusalem? I know of none.

 

[SeventyOne]

Dispensationalism claims that futurized OT sacrifices are memorial offerings, not sin offerings.

Ezekiel 45:22 identifies them as sin offerings.

Either way, I'm glad you finally confirm their existance.

 

[SeventyOne]

So if "living waters" can be taken symbolically in this passage why can't "Jerusalem" be taken symbolically?

I already answered that. The context doesn't allow it.

 

[Tree of Life]

I already answered that. The context doesn't allow it.

Why not?

 

[SeventyOne]

Which literal living water flows in or around Jerusalem? I know of none.

None yet. It's a future thing.

Zec 14:8 On that day living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea. It shall continue in summer as in winter.

And this happens in the same day as...

Zec 14:4 On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives that lies before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley, so that one half of the Mount shall move northward, and the other half southward.

 

[SeventyOne]

Why not?

I answered that too.

 

[Tree of Life]

I answered that too.

Oh.

 

[Truth7t7]

Which literal living water flows in or around Jerusalem? I know of none.

Do you believe in a future literal New Heaven, Earth, And Jerusalem? Revelation 21:1-5

 

[Tree of Life]

Do you believe in a future literal New Heaven, Earth, And Jerusalem? Revelation 21:1-5

Of course. But I also believe that much of the language used to describe it in Revelation is symbolic and impressionistic.