Will the Levitical Priests make Sacrifices during the Millennial Reign?

Will the Levitical Priests make Sacrifices during the Millennial Reign?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 24.0%
  • No

    Votes: 18 72.0%
  • I don't understand the question.

    Votes: 1 4.0%

  • Total voters
    25
Status
Not open for further replies.

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Site Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
55,408
8,164
US
✟1,101,650.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Has Israel enjoyed everlasting, eternal, unbroken, endless, ceaseless, perpetual temple worship, blood sacrifices

I just answered this question. You would have understood that, if you had taken time to comprehend what I said. Israel is in exile. it would be unlawful for the Levitical priests to operate outside of the temple.

Levitical ministry and an earthly king? Of course not!

So messiah won't return to earth? Come on.

You whole argument falls apart at the most basic examination.

You didn't examine my argument. Israel is in exile. i provided proof. It's your turn to counter, and cite your source. That's how logical discussion works.

This Can only be realized in the eternal ministry of Christ and new covenant arrangement. It is time for you to abandon that useless pointless old covenant arrangement you hold tight unto.

Strawman argument. I appreciate your enthusiasm; but you're not being productive to this conversation.

Let's show a little intellectual honesty.
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Site Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
55,408
8,164
US
✟1,101,650.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Not so! You are misrepresenting the original language. I showed you it previous and you dodged around it again

I'm responding to multiple threads. I've been taking posts in sequence. I don't know how I missed this. maybe I stopped reading because you make so many arguments built of faulty premises.

If you have a valid argument; please resubmit it.
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Site Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
55,408
8,164
US
✟1,101,650.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Stop avoiding the issues and address what others are writing. It is not fair to ignore the many posters here that are taking the time to submit comments and multiple Scripture.

I'm addressing those who are quoting me. I'm very busy right now. I'll come back and study the whole thread when things quiet down.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟806,567.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Indeed, that would seem to be a problem however as I pointed out in another post, Ezekiel in chapter 37 was commanded by God to prophecy to the dead of Israel - their dry bones to come out of the graves and put on their bones flesh, nerves, skin and spirit. He will thus fulfill his covenant with them (v.26) so that "they shall be my people and I will be their God (v.23). Thus all Israel will be saved in the millennium which by necessity includes Judas.

John 17
12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

So Jesus is either mistaken, or lying.

Just. imagine. that.

Dispensational delusionism reveals itself for the cultic scourge that it is.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟202,784.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I just answered this question. You would have understood that, if you had taken time to comprehend what I said. Israel is in exile. it would be unlawful for the Levitical priests to operate outside of the temple.



So messiah won't return to earth? Come on.



You didn't examine my argument. Israel is in exile. i provided proof. It's your turn to counter, and cite your source. That's how logical discussion works.



Strawman argument. I appreciate your enthusiasm; but you're not being productive to this conversation.

Let's show a little intellectual honesty.

No, your theory does not hold up. There is no Levitical priest in Israel today, because there is only one God-ordained priest today - Christ. There is no king in Israel today, because there is only one God-ordained king today - Christ. There are no more blood sacrifices in Israel today, because Christ was the final sacrifice for sin. There is no temple in Jerusalem today, because there is no need for one. Christ is the eternal temple!

Your whole trust in the old covenant arrangement went up in spoke at the first advent. Scripture describes the old covenant sacrificial system as “that which is done away” (2 Corinthians 3:11) and “that which is abolished” (2 Corinthians 3:13). It makes clear: “the old testament … vail is done away in Christ" (2 Corinthians 3:14). Hebrews 10:9 confirms: “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” Hebrews 10:2 confirms they “ceased to be offered.”
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟202,784.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm responding to multiple threads. I've been taking posts in sequence. I don't know how I missed this. maybe I stopped reading because you make so many arguments built of faulty premises.

If you have a valid argument; please resubmit it.

That is a cop out. You are fighting with Scripture, not me. It is the Scriptures that forbid your doctrine.
 
Upvote 0

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Christ has removed the whole purpose of animal sacrifices. They were simply a signpost to the cross. Hebrews 10:1-2 makes it perfectly clear, “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.”
Why do you insist on using the past tense. Is the present tense verb inconvenient for your pet doctrine? The tense IS NOT WAS. The verb tense is in the PRESENT TENSE. The Greek word translated as "is" in Heb 10:1 is echōn which is a present tense participle. The aorist tense is no where to be found. Consequently you have still failed to adequately address Heb 10:1. Morever quite ironically you emphasize the purging of sins should have no more conscience of sins. Do really understand what that means? It means that if the sacrifices made people perfect, then the sacrifices would have ceased because they made people perfect. Then they would have no more conscience of sin (since they are perfect). However, imperfect people i.e., sinners still need the law in order to make them conscience of sin. Without the law, how would people know what sin is and therefore the need to repent of it??

Calvary completely finished the Old Testament shadow and type. That is why there is no more sacrifice for sin. I find your belief extraordinary. Honestly! This belief should not be allowed on an evangelical site. It is a direct assault upon the cross. It undermines the finished work of Christ. It abrogates the new covenant.
False teaching which contradicts Jesus himself who plainly stated he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Fulfill means to fill to the full - not to annul as you believe. I find your view to be an extraordinary contradiction to what Jesus taught. I prefer to believe Jesus.

Notably, there are no so-called ‘millennial memorial sacrifices’ mentioned or inferred anywhere in the New Testament. There are none mentioned in Revelation 20 – the supposed foundational proof text for the Premillennial paradigm. This eschatological hope that they will be restored as memorials is therefore misplaced.
If you cracked open your OT, then you might want to read it in places like Ezekiel 43-46. Since you are a NT reader, are you not familiar with Paul's Nazirite vow in Acts 18 which was to be completed with an animal sacrifice (a peace offering and soothing aroma to God). In Acts 21:23-26, Paul completed this vow with a sacrifice, and also condoned the sacrifices of those who accompanied him. In v.24 we are told they were required to shave their heads.
The Nazarite vow is always concluded with animal sacrifices. Num 6:13-21 tells us what the Nazarite vow requires. It required the offering of both the sin offering and burnt offering (v.16), peace offering, meat and drink offering, as well as a wave offering. So if Acts 21 is referring to a Nazarite vow with the shaving of heads, Paul would have certainly offered both the sin and burnt offerings. Paul could not have performed all the requirements required to fulfill the vows, by leaving out the parts requiring animal sacrifices.
Paul's animal sacrifice took place in the book of Acts after the crucifixion so how does that jive with your belief that "animal sacrifices were abolished at the cross?" I have demonstrated that you overlook scripture and foist your mistaken interpretation of the scriptures for the sake of preserving your doctrine.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: keras
Upvote 0

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Not just wrong, but quite ridiculous.

Who is the true Israel of God today? Just those who call themselves Jews? I don't think so!

In the New Testament it is Christians only, Jews and Gentiles, who are revealed as God's chosen people and God's holy nation. A few thousand Jews did become Christians then and many are now. But for the rest, Jesus cursed the fig tree and called them members of the synagogue of Satan.

1 Peter 2:1-lO...They that are with Him [Christ] are called and chosen. [Revelation 17:14; Ephesians 1:4] Peter was writing to Christians: new born babes, lively stones, to a spiritual people, who are the holy priesthood, elect and precious.

The Lord Jesus has become the chief cornerstone of all these new and living stones. He is building only ONE spiritual nation, ONE spiritual temple!

Mathew 21:42. This is the Lord's doing and it is marvelous in our eyes.
Luke 3:8.Truly, God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

To be an Israelite of the promised Seed, one must now be bringing forth good fruit of the spirit from "good ground" and not of the flesh, either in 30, 60, or up to 100 fold in God's spiritual measure - Matthew l3:23. Because the religious system of Israel rejected Christ as the chief cornerstone and bearer of good fruit, Jesus said to the Jews: The kingdom of God shall be taken from you [as a natural literal nation], and given to a [newly incorporated Christian] nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. Matthew 21:43

There is only one Way all must come - John 14:6 That way is not through natural lineage and inheritance, but through the acceptance of God's grace found in Jesus Christ the Lord. There is only one new Covenant and God makes that Covenant only with true believers.

Who is now and shall yet be a part of the new people of God? The natural Jews?
Yes, but only as individuals, as Christian Israelites in a totally new and different nation: citizens of a new city, a new government. They must come through Christ in the same manner as any nationality before they can become new citizens of this new nation in all that area promised to Abraham and his descendants by faith. Heb.11:10-16

Natural Israel did not obtain that which they sought, but the chosen [and faithful] people have attained it. Romans 11:7, Romans 8:29-30
All Israel means all Israel. Just because you can't wrap your finite mind around it, does not make it any less true. I suggest you accommodate the golden rule of hermeneutics and take the plain meaning of the verse as making sense instead of seeking some other sense.
 
Upvote 0

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Why then are you dumping NHNE passages into your millennium? That does not make sense. Do you believe in 2 new heavens and new earths?
What? I wrote that there is only one new earth and one new heaven which occurs after the millennium. Is that simple enough for you?
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟202,784.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why do you insist on using the past tense. Is the present tense verb inconvenient for your pet doctrine? The tense IS NOT WAS. The verb tense is in the PRESENT TENSE. The Greek word translated as "is" in Heb 10:1 is echōn which is a present tense participle. The aorist tense is no where to be found. Consequently you have still failed to adequately address Heb 10:1. Morever quite ironically you emphasize the purging of sins should have no more conscience of sins. Do really understand what that means? It means that if the sacrifices made people perfect, then the sacrifices would have ceased because they made people perfect. Then they would have no more conscience of sin (since they are perfect). However, imperfect people i.e., sinners still need the law in order to make them conscience of sin. Without the law, how would people know what sin is and therefore the need to repent of it??


False teaching which contradicts Jesus himself who plainly stated he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Fulfill means to fill to the full - not to annul as you believe. I find your view to be an extraordinary contradiction to what Jesus taught. I prefer to believe Jesus.


If you cracked open your OT, then you might want to read it in places like Ezekiel 43-46. Since you are a NT reader, are you not familiar with Paul's Nazirite vow in Acts 18 which was to be completed with an animal sacrifice (a peace offering and soothing aroma to God). In Acts 21:23-26, Paul completed this vow with a sacrifice, and also condoned the sacrifices of those who accompanied him. In v.24 we are told they were required to shave their heads.
The Nazarite vow is always concluded with animal sacrifices. Num 6:13-21 tells us what the Nazarite vow requires. It required the offering of both the sin offering and burnt offering (v.16), peace offering, meat and drink offering, as well as a wave offering. So if Acts 21 is referring to a Nazarite vow with the shaving of heads, Paul would have certainly offered both the sin and burnt offerings. Paul could not have performed all the requirements required to fulfill the vows, by leaving out the parts requiring animal sacrifices.
Paul's animal sacrifice took place in the book of Acts after the crucifixion so how does that jive with your belief that "animal sacrifices were abolished at the cross?" I have demonstrated that you overlook scripture and foist your mistaken interpretation of the scriptures for the sake of preserving your doctrine.

The problem is: you don't see the difference between the moral law and the ceremonial law. The moral law is still active to expose sin in the sinner. The righteous are no longer under the law, when they come to Christ. The ceremonial law was abolished a long time ago at the cross. It is gone! You cannot even see this. This is 101 Christianity.

The law that exists is the written moral law, not the ceremonial law. It was abolished through the cross-work. Notwithstanding, the believer is not under the law, just the unbeliever. 1 Timothy 1:8-10: the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane …”

Galatians 3:10-11 tells us: "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith."

If people are not found in Christ then they are under the law and therefore condemned. Sinful man is condemned by the law. It is man's schoolmaster.

Galatians 3:22-29 confirms: the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”

Whilst the law is still holy, good and moral, its prime purpose for the believer is that it points them to Jesus Christ.

Galatians 2:16 declares, a man is not justified by the works of the law.”

Why? Because Christ fulfilled the law on our behalf. That is where our salvation kicks in. We now operate on the merits of His imputed righteousness.
  • The moral law is still active - it exposes sin
  • The ceremonial law is abolished forever – it is superseded by Christ and the new covenant
We should let Scripture speak for itself. Colossians 2:14 plainly declares, speaking of these Old Testament ordinances, “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.”

Q. When did/will the "blotting out the handwriting of ordinances" occur?

A. Christ "took it out of the way" by "nailing it to his cross.”

These ordinances embraced the old covenant civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical law. They were finished at the cross.

When Christ made that final sacrifice for sin He satisfied all God’s holy demands for sin and uncleanness and thus Christ became the final propitiation and substitution for the sinner. Ephesians 2:15 also says, “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.”

Jesus did away with any need or reliance upon the outward keeping of the old covenant religious system. The cross fulfilled forever God’s demand for a perfect once-for-all sacrifice.

Colossians 2:20-22 finally sums up the sums up the biblical position today: “Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using) after the commandments and doctrines of men?”

This is not talking about the moral law, it is talking about the ceremonial law. It is a redundant system. Christ took the whole old system away. The old Mosaic ceremonial law is completely gone. It is useless.

Christianity took us away from the old Mosaic ceremonial law completely. Those who argue for a return to the old system fail to see that it has been rendered obsolete through the new covenant.

Hebrews 7:18-19 makes clear: For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.”

This word “disannulling” is taken from the Greek word athetesis meaning cancellation.

The phrase “weakness and unprofitableness” used here to describe the old abolished system actually reads asthenes kai anopheles literally meaning: feeble and impotent useless and unprofitable.

It is hard to believe that any Christian would promote the return, on the new earth of all places, of such a hopeless discarded arrangement.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟202,784.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What? I wrote that there is only one new earth and one new heaven which occurs after the millennium. Is that simple enough for you?

Why were you dumping Isaiah 65 into your future millennium then?
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟202,784.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
All Israel means all Israel. Just because you can't wrap your finite mind around it, does not make it any less true. I suggest you accommodate the golden rule of hermeneutics and take the plain meaning of the verse as making sense instead of seeking some other sense.

Please address #262 that refutes this.
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Site Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
55,408
8,164
US
✟1,101,650.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
The problem is: you don't see the difference between the moral law and the ceremonial law. The moral law is still active to expose sin in the sinner.

Book, chapter, verse? I'm no longer interested in your opinions. Please provide concise scriptural proof.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Site Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
55,408
8,164
US
✟1,101,650.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Galatians 2:16 declares, a man is not justified by the works of the law.”

The Judaeans we're well familiar with YHWH's Law (Torah), but they were also practicing Works of Law.

I don't see "Works of Law" mentioned in the Torah. I don't see any mention of it by Yahshua. Where is Paul getting this?

It is mentioned 1 time in Romans and 6 times in Galatians.

It is also mentioned in the Qumran Scrolls.

Q394 (4QMMTa) 4QHalakhic Letter
Dead Sea Scrolls Project: 4QMMT

Definition of halacha
: the body of Jewish law supplementing the scriptural law and forming especially the legal part of the Talmud
Definition of HALACHA

Yahshua rebuked putting the traditions of men over the Torah.
 
Upvote 0

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There is only one body, one people of God, one Gospel and one salvation. You are trying to make two. You are making a race salvation and a spiritual salvation, a Jewish people and a Gentile people. The New Testament makes clear; there is only one elect people. There is only one good olive tree, not two; one body, not two; one bride, not two; one spiritual temple, not two; one people of God, not two; one household of faith, not two; one fold, not two; one man, not “twain,” and one elect of God throughout time.
Please cite anywhere where I stated that I'm trying to make two bodies. I don't appreciate your fabrication as there is one body in Christ however the plan that God has for the Jew and gentile proceed along different tracks and timing.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. Rom 1:16

This is a passage above that has confused many Christians over the years. The reason for this seems to revolve around the phrase “all Israel shall be saved.” There are many that deduce corporate salvation for natural Israel from this. But is Paul contradicting himself in his Romans 9-11 discourse? In one breath in Romans 9:27 he is saying “a remnant shall be saved” (future, passive, indicative), in the next, in Romans 11:26, he is saying “all Israel shall be saved” (future, passive, indicative).
You might still be one of the confused ones. Is there a contradiction between "remnant" and "all?" Not at all. FYI the remnant refers to those who are part of the exanastasis. I'll let you look that up for yourself. Paul states that he has not yet attained to it which implies that some do and some don't. Those that suffer and overcome in the faith are the remnant who are judged in the first resurrection and found worthy to reign with Christ in the millennium. The rest of those in the "all" category are eventually saved but do not get the privilege to reign with Christ during the millennium. The Christian church has been sold a box of false goods. Paul made it clear in Phil 3:11 that his goal was to attain to the exanastasis. This is not the same Greek word translated elsewhere as resurrection and it only occurs once in the NT. Paul wrote that he MIGHT attain to it - not will or has attained it. If Paul's goal was to attain to the exanastasis, shouldn't every believer's goal be the same thing? I'll let you mull over that for a while.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟806,567.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I prefer to believe Jesus.

Like you believe Him here?

John 17
12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Site Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
55,408
8,164
US
✟1,101,650.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
When did/will the "blotting out the handwriting of ordinances" occur?


Colossians 2:14 (CLV)

erasing the handwriting of the decrees against us, which was hostile to us, and has taken it away out of the midst, nailing it to the cross,


Lexicon :: Strong's G1378 - dogma
font_conBar_a.png

δόγμα
Transliteration
dogma
Pronunciation
do'g-mä (Key)
speaker.3.svg

Part of Speech
neuter noun
Root Word (Etymology)
From the base of δοκέω (G1380)
Dictionary Aids
Vine's Expository Dictionary: View Entry

TDNT Reference: 2:230,178

KJV Translation Count — Total: 5x
The KJV translates Strong's G1378 in the following manner: decree (3x), ordinance (2x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
  1. doctrine, decree, ordinance
    1. of public decrees

    2. of the Roman Senate

    3. of rulers
  2. the rules and requirements of the law of Moses; carrying a suggestion of severity and of threatened judgment

  3. of certain decrees of the apostles relative to right living
Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
δόγμα dógma, dog'-mah; from the base of G1380; a law (civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical):—decree, ordinance.
Thayer's Greek Lexicon [?] (Jump to Scripture Index)
STRONGS NT 1378: δόγμα
δόγμα, δογματος, τό (from δοκέω, and equivalent to τό δεδογμενον), an opinion, a judgment (Plato, others), doctrine, decree, ordinance;
1. of public decrees (as τῆς πόλεως, Plato, legg. 1, p. 644 d.; of the Roman Senate (Polybius 6, 13, 2); Herodian, 7, 10, 8 (5, Bekker edition)): of rulers, Luke 2:1; Acts 17:7; Hebrews 11:23 Lachmann (Theod. in Daniel 2:13; Daniel 3:10; Daniel 4:3; Daniel 6:13, etc. — where the Sept. uses other words).
2. of the rules and requirements of the law of Moses, 3Macc. 1:3; διατήρησις τῶν ἁγίων δογμάτων, Philo, alleg. legg. i., § 16; carrying a suggestion of severity, and of threatened punishment, τόν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δογμασι, the law containing precepts in the form of decrees (A. V. the law of commandments contained in ordinances), Ephesians 2:15; τό καθ' ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς δογμασι equivalent to τό τοῖς δογμασι (dative of instrument) by ὄν καθ' ἡμῶν, the bond against us by its decrees, Colossians 2:14; cf. Winers Grammar, § 31, 10 Note 1 (Buttmann, 92 (80); on both passages see Lightfoot on Colossians, the passage cited).
3. of certain decrees of the apostles relative to right living: Acts 16:4. (Of all the precepts of the Christian religion: βεβαιωθῆναι ἐν τοῖς δόγμασιν τοῦ κυρίου καί τῶν ἀποστόλων, Ignatius ad Magnes. 13, 1 [ET]; of the precepts (`sentences' or tenets) of philosophers, in the later secular writings: Cicero, acad. 2, 9, 27de suis decretis, quae philosophi vocant dogmata.) (On the use of the word in general, see Lightfoot as above; (cf. 'Teaching' etc. 11, 3 [ET]).)


Source: Genesis 1:1 (NASB)

Now why would Sha'ul use the word δόγμα in this verse?

I believe that he meant what he said, and said what he meant.


Anytime Paul is referring to THE LAW of Yahweh he used the phrase ho nomos which is
“The Law” in Greek.

So if THE LAW wasn't nailed to the (stake) pale; what was?


DECREE - Definition from the KJV Dictionary
DECREE, n. L. To judge; to divide.
1. Judicial decision or determination of a litigated cause; as a decree of the court of
chancery. The decision of a court of equity is called a decree; that of a court of law, a
judgment.

This is the gift of grace. Put into context, Sha'ul is not contradicting Yahshua, who said that the LAW will not pass away before heaven or earth. He's not telling us that we can live like lawless Hellians under grace because the LAW has been demolished. He's telling us that the judgements (under penalty of death) of our past sins are covered, through Yahshua, by the grace of Yahweh.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Site Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
55,408
8,164
US
✟1,101,650.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
If people are not found in Christ then they are under the law and therefore condemned.

Indeed!

Because those who are not in Messiah continue in their lawlessness.


(CLV) Mt 7:21
"Not everyone saying to Me `Lord! Lord!' will be entering into the kingdom of the heavens, but he who is doing the will of My Father Who is in the heavens.
(CLV) Mt 7:22
Many will be declaring to Me in that day, `Lord! Lord! Was it not in Your name that we prophesy, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name do many powerful deeds?'
(CLV) Mt 7:23
And then shall I be avowing to them that `I never knew you! Depart from Me, workers of lawlessness!'
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.