Whats the problem with sacriices taking place in the 1000 years?

[warfrog]

I'd like to know why you have a problem or dont have a problem with such events taking place during that time.

Oh and +10 (um super duper points) to anyone who can post, post crucifixtion scriptures of a certian man partaking in a sacrificial tradition with no conviction nor mention of it being forbidden.

 

[Sinthesis]

Not as obvious an answer as one would think.

Act 21:26 ¶ Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.​

 

[jasoncran]

some here would rather have christians celebrate a pagan holiday, and give no conviction or warning on its origins because a parent "church" redeem that holiday, whereas neither the apostles nor old testament saints would touch such a holiday as its mentioned in jerimiah.

the holiday is known today as christmas. i am not saying we should return to the law or would endorse such a position., but synthesis has a point and warfrog.is celebrating or at least trying to understand the feasts a bad thing? or the festival of dedication? where these do have real pointing to christ, not an add in effect to win local pagans.

 

[Stormcrow]

Act 21:26 ¶ Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

Paul was a devout Jew and a Pharisee. Some habits die hard.

{14} But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean." {15} Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." Acts 10:14-15 (NASB)

The inverse of that statement is equally true: "What God has put away, no longer consider holy."


Simply because sacrifices were being offered in the Temple after Christ's perfect sacrifice in no way means that they had any power to atone for the people's sins.

Temple. No Temple. Sacrifices. No sacrifices. It's all been made moot by the sacrifice of Christ. If people have an issue with that, they should crack open the book of Hebrews.

 

[warfrog]

Paul was a devout Jew and a Pharisee. Some habits die hard.



The inverse of that statement is equally true: "What God has put away, no longer consider holy."


Simply because sacrifices were being offered in the Temple after Christ's perfect sacrifice in no way means that they had any power to atone for the people's sins.

Temple. No Temple. Sacrifices. No sacrifices. It's all been made moot by the sacrifice of Christ. If people have an issue with that, they should crack open the book of Hebrews.

I agree with that they dont attone for people sins, we have Christ.
Paul took the gentiles who had made a nazarite vow and partook in sacrifice ext post crucifixtion, yet mentioned no conviction otherwise that i was unholy or wrong, im not saying we should be partakers of it, but the "thousand years" whether you veiw it symbolically or literally is an obvious differential time, the saints will have complete understanding of God at that time as they are given likewise body's to Christ from His return to end the beast and his armies, so why would having the sacrificial ceremonies if implemented in the thousand years nullify Christ?
Paul partook of them afterwards, did he nullify Christ? No
Right now it doesnt mean we have to be partakers of it, the thousand years could be different is all im presenting, showing that the partaking of the ceremonies that had been implemented dont necessarily mean the evil some of you display it as considering Paul had no problem being involved and paying for such a thing.

You win +10 super duper points Synthesis. Theres also more to do with this if anyones interested i will post a brethrens complete reply about the whole thing.

 

[warfrog]

some here would rather have christians celebrate a pagan holiday, and give no conviction or warning on its origins because a parent "church" redeem that holiday, whereas neither the apostles nor old testament saints would touch such a holiday as its mentioned in jerimiah.

the holiday is known today as christmas. i am not saying we should return to the law or would endorse such a position., but synthesis has a point and warfrog.is celebrating or at least trying to understand the feasts a bad thing? or the festival of dedication? where these do have real pointing to christ, not an add in effect to win local pagans.

No i dont celebrate them, i do understand them to degree, not as much so as many, especially those with interest in Jew culture or wo are Jews themselves.

The question is merely being presented to show that their may actually be a different side to the sacrifices than some present them as a nullifiation to Christ, im trying to show them that because we beleive they may very well be implemented in the thousand years it doesnt mean we beleive they are nullifications to Christ.

 

[reba]

The book of Hebrews IMHO makes it clear that He was the Thee Sacrifice.

The fact that God destroyed the 'temple' , at the end of "this" generation.

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.


Jesus said He was the Temple. He is the chief corner stone etc.

The OT sacrifices were a picture of the real the pattern of the real Christ is/was the real.

1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
Tit 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
Tit 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

 

[warfrog]

The book of Hebrews IMHO makes it clear that He was the Thee Sacrifice.

The fact that God destroyed the 'temple' , at the end of "this" generation.

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.


Jesus said He was the Temple. He is the chief corner stone etc.

The OT sacrifices were a picture of the real the pattern of the real Christ is/was the real.

1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
Tit 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
Tit 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

I agree.
Yes so what are you saying?
It was Christian men and Paul who participated, who was an Apostle, do you believe Paul partook of these ceremonies with brethren in defilement of Christ? Indeed not, so all of that scripture you just posted clearly doesnt imply that, that is what Paul was doing, he was cleary not going againts those scriptures yet he also paid for and participated in the ceremony.
So why do people always rush to the conclusion that such things means nullification of Christ?

 

[reba]

In a nut shell and because it is hard to post and moderate, this will have to be my last on the topic..

The 'this generation' statements of Jesus make the difference. The end of the 'temple age" those kinda of things

 

[Sinthesis]

Not all sacrifices were for atonement. Surely tithes don't nullify Christ.

 

[Sinthesis]

You win +10 super duper points Synthesis. Theres also more to do with this if anyones interested i will post a brethrens complete reply about the whole thing.

Oh goody!2
However you shouldn't infer that I'm going to agree with any ideas you might have about the millennium.

 

[warfrog]

Oh goody!2
However you shouldn't infer that I'm going to agree with any ideas you might have about the millennium.

I dont 8), im aware of our understandings and thier differences, the point is to show that their is a possibilty of those ceremonies post crucifixtion that dont display the "rebelious esque" nature many present them as in defilement of Christ, as im sure what we can agree on, that wasnt what Paul was doing when he paid for and participated in it with Gentile saints who had made a vow.

Note: they were not Gentiles, that is a mistake within my post.

 

[Sinthesis]

I dont 8), im aware of our understandings and thier differences, the point is to show that their is a possibilty of those ceremonies post crucifixtion that dont display the "rebelious esque" nature many present them as in defilement of Christ, as im sure what we can agree on, that wasnt what Paul was doing when he paid for and participated in it with Gentile saints who had made a vow.

The four men were not gentiles.

 

[warfrog]

The four men were not gentiles.

Indeed correct.
Thank you for the correction, i have added a notice whithin my post.

Does that do anything to change what was being displayed?

 

[Elijah674]

Paul was a devout Jew and a Pharisee. Some habits die hard.

The inverse of that statement is equally true: "What God has put away, no longer consider holy."

Simply because sacrifices were being offered in the Temple after Christ's perfect sacrifice in no way means that they had any power to atone for the people's sins.

Temple. No Temple. Sacrifices. No sacrifices. It's all been made moot by the sacrifice of Christ. If people have an issue with that, they should crack open the book of Hebrews.

Agreed! But not just that Book of Heb. (Matt. 4:4) And surely you are not posting that the Godheads Eternal Covenant (Heb. 13:20) were (or are) from the pen of Moses 'Book' of laws, or that these of God ones were indeed FINISHED when the Eternal Plan of Christs Crucifixion was completed? And the vail went rent from the top to the bottom making the way into the Most Holy Place.

And what was inside of The Most Holy Place that corrected flawed
Doctrine? 2 Tim. 3:16 mentions Doctrine! So read Rev. 11:18-19

But, you are not disagreeing with the Word of God, huh?

 

[Stormcrow]

Agreed! But not just that Book of Heb. (Matt. 4:4) And surely you are not posting that the Godheads Eternal Covenant (Heb. 13:20) were (or are) from the pen of Moses 'Book' of laws, or that these of God ones were indeed FINISHED when the Eternal Plan of Christs Crucifixion was completed? And the vail went rent from the top to the bottom making the way into the Most Holy Place.

And what was inside of The Most Holy Place that corrected flawed
Doctrine? 2 Tim. 3:16 mentions Doctrine! So read Rev. 11:18-19

But, you are not disagreeing with the Word of God, huh?

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to communicate. 2

 

[Elijah674]

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to communicate. 2

Have you any 'spiritual' input on Moses Laws??

 

[Elijah674]

I'd like to know why you have a problem or dont have a problem with such events taking place during that time.

Oh and +10 (um super duper points) to anyone who can post, post crucifixtion scriptures of a certian man partaking in a sacrificial tradition with no conviction nor mention of it being forbidden.

If one BELIEVES Christ's Word? It is all there in Jer. 4:21-26 that there is NO MAN on earth during the 1000 years! So verse 27 finds the Saved Ones elsewhere!

See 1 Cor. 6:2-3 with ALL OF THESE LOST [D-E-A-D] STANDING & JUDGED BY BOOKS ONLY!

The only way that they are there in heaven is seen by the ACCURATE RECORD BOOKS. Eccl. 12:13-14

 

[Lehigh3]

So, you advocate Christians turning to Judaism?

 

[Jake]

Have you any 'spiritual' input on Moses Laws??

They were all fulfilled in Christ.