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

[Elijah674]

They were all fulfilled in Christ.

You will need to spell that out for some of these guy's! NO more animal sacrifices.

 

[Jake]

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

Yet, the New Testament doesn't mention tithes either.

 

[Jake]

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.

He only partook of them because he was trying to win over the Jews who were still under the law. That is the only reason he did it, not to further his own jewish practices.
It's just like we are not to criticize people for keeping some holy days holy or eating something that would cause another to fall.
It would be completely sinful for us to offer a sacrifice and I would be a little worried about Hebrews 6 coming into play.

 

[warfrog]

You will need to spell that out for some of these guy's! NO more animal sacrifices.

Elijah were not discussing wether sacrfices have meaning in Christ as a sacrifice, the point is they never did, they were shadows of Christ and it never pleased God in the sacrfices themselves, it was always the conditioning of the heart for God even in the O.T, the sacrifices never "bought" anything, it was a work of faith in God, a condition of the heart that pleased God.

Paul partakes in sacrifice post crucifixition, he didnt do so because he didnt know Christ, he did it in faith that it was the right thing to do in Christ for 1. those 4 christian jews who had made a vow and secondly to have the opportunity to display Christ to the rest of those involved peaceably, which didnt turn out that way as he was soon arrested and jailed.

I didnt bring the discussion up to determine sacrifices literally mean nothing, they dont, Christ is the sacrifice, that still doesnt determine that they are "evil" like many speak, if they were Paul wouldnt have partook in it.
It also represents that sacrifices do and can have meaning during the 1000 years outside of people thinking they are for the remission of sins, they never were anyways, it always was and always will be the condition of ones heart in faith to God that God delights in as a pleseant aroma.

 

[warfrog]

He only partook of them because he was trying to win over the Jews who were still under the law. That is the only reason he did it, not to further his own jewish practices.
It's just like we are not to criticize people for keeping some holy days holy or eating something that would cause another to fall.
It would be completely sinful for us to offer a sacrifice and I would be a little worried about Hebrews 6 coming into play.

Agreed s adressed in the post above that we posted almost smutaniously, i think i cover exactly what i mean in all this.
Why would you be worried? Do you not know that Christ is the sacrifice? So would a sacrifice be done for sin, as it never accomplished anyways? Or would it be done in a celebratoral action in remembrance?
Would you cry to God if He told you that during that time you will partake in such and such sacrifice, not for the remission of sins, which we both agree never was the point of them as God was never pleased in the sacrifices themselves anyways, nor was He ever pleased in those who sacrificed to Him without the conditioing of the heart in faith towards God (empty sacrifice).
So if they were to be done in remembrance, because God commanded they be done, im not going to argue. "What you do, do in faith of Christ" the thousand years we will be resurrected in likewise bodies of Christ at that point knowing all things of God, being one complete body, their wont be a disagreement anyways.

 

[warfrog]

This i am not posting of my own, these are not my personal words, but is exactly what i speak when i say God never was pleased in the sacrifices themselves incase anyone was confused to what i was speaking.:

1Sa 15:22 So Samuel said: "Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams.

Psa 51:16-17 For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it; You do not delight in burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, A broken and a contrite heart— These, O God, You will not despise.

Whats my point? Even in the Old Testament, the sacrifices were symbolic of a inward realty of the heart and unless the heart changed then the sacrifices were not acceptable to God. And repentance from God's view was always rooted God's forgiveness through looking forward to the blood of Jesus. Likewise,
the sacrifices from God's view were always symbolic looking forward to ultimate sacrifice in Christ. The symbolism does not save anyone.

Heb 9:8 the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing.

This is why Hebrews tells us that the old sacrificial system was merely SYMBOLIC and unable to cleanse the conscious of sin

Heb 9:9 It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience

 

[Jake]

Agreed s adressed in the post above that we posted almost smutaniously, i think i cover exactly what i mean in all this.
Why would you be worried? Do you not know that Christ is the sacrifice? So would a sacrifice be done for sin, as it never accomplished anyways? Or would it be done in a celebratoral action in remembrance?
Would you cry to God if He told you that during that time you will partake in such and such sacrifice, not for the remission of sins, which we both agree never was the point of them as God was never pleased in the sacrifices themselves anyways, nor was He ever pleased in those who sacrificed to Him without the conditioing of the heart in faith towards God (empty sacrifice).
So if they were to be done in remembrance, because God commanded they be done, im not going to argue. "What you do, do in faith of Christ" the thousand years we will be resurrected in likewise bodies of Christ at that point knowing all things of God, being one complete body, their wont be a disagreement anyways.

God isn't going to ask or tell anyone to sacrifice animals in celebration or for any other reason, so no worries there.
The reason I said I would be worried about Heb 6, is because a person sacrificing animals today, would be not recognizing what Jesus did on the cross. There should be NO sacrificing, but US - who are conforming to Christ's image to be an acceptable sacrifice for Him.

 

[warfrog]

God isn't going to ask or tell anyone to sacrifice animals in celebration or for any other reason, so no worries there.
The reason I said I would be worried about Heb 6, is because a person sacrificing animals today, would be not recognizing what Jesus did on the cross. There should be NO sacrificing, but US - who are conforming to Christ's image to be an acceptable sacrifice for Him.

You determine that He wont how?
Thats not true Rockie Paul was one of those people you are speaking of, as we both agree he did it and paid for it, he didnt do that because he didnt know Christ, he was recognized and called an Apostle, as paying for and partaking of it he would have been clearly knowledgeable as you speak that it would somehow take away from the cross, but he speaks nothing of it, in fact not a mention because it had 0 meaning as you think it does, it did nothing to take away from what Christ did on the cross or else Paul who was filled with the Holy Spirit wouldnt have paid for it and partook in it, even if done for the sake of converting people to Christ, you cannot take away from Christ to gain for Christ, evil work cannot be good, nor can good be called evil.

 

[Jake]

You determine that He wont how?
Thats not true Rockie Paul was one of those people you are speaking of, as we both agree he did it and paid for it, he didnt do that because he didnt know Christ, he was recognized and called an Apostle, as paying for and partaking of it he would have been clearly knowledgeable as you speak that it would somehow take away from the cross, but he speaks nothing of it, in fact not a mention because it had 0 meaning as you think it does, it did nothing to take away from what Christ did on the cross or else Paul who was filled with the Holy Spirit wouldnt have paid for it and partook in it, even if done for the sake of converting people to Christ, you cannot take away from Christ to gain for Christ, evil work cannot be good, nor can good be called evil.

I agree, but Paul had a purpose for doing it along side the Jews, to convert them.
It was not in his heart that it was something he needed to do, I get that. Maybe, if the jews start sacrificing animals God would ask us to go alongside them in order to convert - I really don't know.
Yet, killing animals to sacrifice them for a celebration? I really don't believe that will happen.

 

[warfrog]

I agree, but Paul had a purpose for doing it along side the Jews, to convert them.
It was not in his heart that it was something he needed to do, I get that. Maybe, if the jews start sacrificing animals God would ask us to go alongside them in order to convert - I really don't know.
Yet, killing animals to sacrifice them for a celebration? I really don't believe that will happen.

Yes, he was also told it could ease already concieved tensions by other Jews about him and converting his fellow Jews, evil cannot be good though, if it was supposed to be concieved as taking away from Christ at the cross, Paul wouldnt have paid and partook in the sacrifice to possibly convert more men, he wouldnt do evil for the sake of good.
I think we both agree on that, no?

Why? because thier animals? why can you not beleive that? I dont understand what the problem is. God has asked men to kill animal many many times and they never ever attoned for sin in the first place as the scriptures i showed you already....God is not an animal activist, if that is indeed what you have a problem with.
If not then i dont understand what your problem with it may be, could you clarify?

 

[Jake]

Yes, he was also told it could ease already concieved tensions by other Jews about him and converting his fellow Jews, evil cannot be good though, if it was supposed to be concieved as taking away from Christ at the cross, Paul wouldnt have paid and partook in the sacrifice to possibly convert more men, he wouldnt do evil for the sake of good.
I think we both agree on that, no?

Why? because thier animals? why can you not beleive that? I dont understand what the problem is. God has asked men to kill animal many many times and they never ever attoned for sin in the first place as the scriptures i showed you already....God is not an animal activist, if that is indeed what you have a problem with.
If not then i dont understand what your problem with it may be, could you clarify?

I am a hunter and a fisherman. lol Not an animal activists. Animal sacrifices for any reason was an old covenant practice, we are in the new covenant now, we aren't going back to the old ways, practices or laws. Why would you believe it?

 

[warfrog]

I am a hunter and a fisherman. lol Not an animal activists. Animal sacrifices for any reason was an old covenant practice, we are in the new covenant now, we aren't going back to the old ways, practices or laws. Why would you believe it?

Because i dont beleive it does point back to the old ways, as the old ways never pointed to the old ways in which you speak in the first place, it never was about a sacrificial animal in the first place, it always was the heart of those performing them and those seeking them to perform it for them.
So i see no problem of them occuring in the 1000 years as a remembrance, as it never was a take away from the cross, it was a show of symbolic representation in the shadow of Christ, it always pointed to the cross, which as those sacrifices were never accepted in emptyness, nethier is Christ at the cross, both always required conditioning of the heart, work/action in faith of God.

Im also a fishermen and hunter, i brought up the animal things because i couldnt understand why you couldnt beleive God would have it done, overbearing love for animals was the first conclusion i came up with due to what im saying the sacrifices represented, as they never did take sin away, the heart, work and faith in God looking towards the True sacrifice, that is Christ, was what pleased God.
Thats why i said in my last sentences could you clarify, incase that wasnt why you wouldnt beleive.

 

[reba]

back in the garden Cain wanted it his way....

 

[Jake]

Because i dont beleive it does point back to the old ways, as the old ways never pointed to the old ways in which you speak in the first place, it never was about a sacrificial animal in the first place, it always was the heart of those performing them and those seeking them to perform it for them.
So i see no problem of them occuring in the 1000 years as a remembrance, as it never was a take away from the cross, it was a show of symbolic representation in the shadow of Christ, it always pointed to the cross, which as those sacrifices were never accepted in emptyness, nethier is Christ at the cross, both always required conditioning of the heart, work/action in faith of God.

Im also a fishermen and hunter, i brought up the animal things because i couldnt understand why you couldnt beleive God would have it done, overbearing love for animals was the first conclusion i came up with due to what im saying the sacrifices represented, as they never did take sin away, the heart, work and faith in God looking towards the True sacrifice, that is Christ, was what pleased God.
Thats why i said in my last sentences could you clarify, incase that wasnt why you wouldnt beleive.

warfrog, it absolutely DOES point to the old covenant. lol We do nothing of the sort now. The animal sacrifices were used for celebrations, as well as atoning for sins, it is an old covenant law! It was about the blood, the blood had to be shed for atonement AND it was a pleasing aroma to the Lord, like insence - which is what? His people's prayers! We will never ever go back to sacrificing animals again, for any reason!
If you go back and read Leviticus, there you can read WHY they had animal sacrifices, there was a point to them, they fit in with THEIR law, not ours, animal sacrifices were never given to us, none of the old laws were given to us.

 

[warfrog]

back in the garden Cain wanted it his way....

Indeed, outside the garden, deleted by the staff 8). (HAHA VIC!!!! you could have explianed what i typed there and what it meant! it looks like i cussed or something now LOL!!, Reba, p.m me or Vic if you want to know what Vic removed 8) )

You hold a veiw, from my current knowledge that their will be no thousand years after Christ's return, so based on that knowledge may i ask you to clarify your purpose as to why you said what you said above Reba?

 

[warfrog]

warfrog, it absolutely DOES point to the old covenant. lol We do nothing of the sort now. The animal sacrifices were used for celebrations, as well as atoning for sins, it is an old covenant law! It was about the blood, the blood had to be shed for atonement AND it was a pleasing aroma to the Lord, like insence - which is what? His people's prayers! We will never ever go back to sacrificing animals again, for any reason!
If you go back and read Leviticus, there you can read WHY they had animal sacrifices, there was a point to them, they fit in with THEIR law, not ours, animal sacrifices were never given to us, none of the old laws were given to us.

What was the purpose of those sacrifices? They never took sin away and the sacrifices themselves NEVER pleased God, it always was the work of faith, the heart of the men towards God that was pleasing, not the sacrifices.
They were shadows of the true purpose, Christ, they pointed to the cross. No?

Indeed they did.
Im not disagreeing that they were the law at all, they didnt atone for anything, it was an action God commanded (faith and work in God, He said "Do this" and they listened) God says im not pleased in your sacrifices im pleased in the hearts of those performing it in faith and love in God looking to and knowing in the promise of God for deliverence.
All of those sacrifices pointed TO Christ, not to the current situation they were in for deliverence, God said "Do" and they did as Abraham did, not recieving but knowing and having faith in God.
Sacrifices performed in the millenium do not represent taking theirs sins away, it represents Christ as it always did, so i have no problem with such events occuring post return of Christ. As Paul had no problem partaking and paying for post crucifixtion.

It wasnt the sacrifice itself that was the pleasing aroma, did you read the scriptures that i provided? If you did you would understand it wasnt the blood or the incense that was a pleasing aroma, it was the reasoning, the faith, the work in God, following His command in love that made them pleasing, not the physical smell/action.

What makes that being done in the 1000 years any different? Being done in God's command as a remembrence, a pointing back to the cross in celebration with Christ present any different? It isnt the action of it being performed thats pleasing to God, its the reasoning inwardly of all towards God in faith and work out of love for God.

 

[Jake]

What was the purpose of those sacrifices? They never took sin away and the sacrifices themselves NEVER pleased God, it always was the work of faith, the heart of the men towards God that was pleasing, not the sacrifices.
They were shadows of the true purpose, Christ, they pointed to the cross. No?

Agreed, but don't forget their is no forgiveness of sins w/out the shedding of blood, which was the whole premise of animal sacrifices!

Sacrifices performed in the millenium do not represent taking theirs sins away, it represents Christ as it always did, so i have no problem with such events occuring post return of Christ. As Paul had no problem partaking and paying for post crucifixtion.

We already know Paul ONLY did it to convert the Jews who thought they had to continue.

Perhaps you don't understand the point the Bible makes about how Christ is in us, we are conforming to His image, participating with the revealing of the glory of God - THAT is the celebration! There is no need of shedding of blood again! The blood was already shed!

What makes that being done in the 1000 years any different? Being done in God's command as a remembrence, a pointing back to the cross in celebration with Christ present any different? It isnt the action of it being performed thats pleasing to God, its the reasoning inwardly of all towards God in faith and work out of love for God.

The difference is we are sacrificing now, ourselves. We should be sacrficing ourselves daily - that is the truest form of worship and you want to go back and kill animals again. :shocked!

 

[warfrog]

Agreed, but don't forget their is no forgiveness of sins w/out the shedding of blood, which was the whole premise of animal sacrifices!

We already know Paul ONLY did it to convert the Jews who thought they had to continue.

Perhaps you don't understand the point the Bible makes about how Christ is in us, we are conforming to His image, participating with the revealing of the glory of God - THAT is the celebration! There is no need of shedding of blood again! The blood was already shed!


The difference is we are sacrificing now, ourselves. We should be sacrficing ourselves daily - that is the truest form of worship and you want to go back and kill animals again. :shocked!

Yep, but that blood did absolutely nothing.
The action of faith in God performing the work He commanded in the condition of their hearts towards God was what was pleasing, just as Abraham not recieving the promise yet God claiming him deemed righteous becuase Abraham saw the invisible things that were yet to come and beleived in them because he believed in the Word. (which came directly from God, both as God spoke to Abraham and as God sent His only begotten Son either way we look at it 8) )

Yep, Paul wouldnt have done it if it represented as you are speaking, evil (taking away from the cross as your representing) cannot be a provision of good in any form, Paul clearly did not feel what he was doing represented what you speak of it as, nor would its occurance in the 1000 years.

Their isnt a need of it, i never said its was needed during the 1000 years, nor is it needed now, being done in remembrance of what it represents doesnt make it needed, what makes it needed is refusing to do it when God requires it, that is not following Gods desire, making it a requirment, the sarifice itself isnt the requirement.
If the Lord says come up to my place and we shall celebrate my representation and sacrifice custom is part of the celebratory act, that doesnt make it needed based on the sacrifice itself, it makes it needed based on its celebratory representation of the Lord.
Why would anyone not want to take part in a symbolic representation of celebration of the cross, Christ Jesus.?

No i dont, tell me once where i said right now we should do such a thing?
I agree completely with you, we are as you say, we are also a temple to God, bodily, He dwells in all saints sitting in His temple in the form of the Holy Spirit.

Which is exactly where the abomination of desolation is set up, standing where he ought not, claiming himself as God (completely different discussion though)

We are looking to the inheritance, recieving the gaurentee as a promise to it from God (the Holy Spirit being the gaurentee)
In the thousand years we have recieved that inheritance, as we are resurrected incorruptible and immortal, we are going to move into the kingdom of God the Father on a new heaven and earth and nothing can seperate us from that in the resurrection. We would be looking back to the cross just as they looked forward to the cross in the representation of the sacrifices which pointed to Christ as they would point back to Christ.

 

[Jake]

Well, warfrog, if you want to go back under the laws of the Jews, that's your deal.

 

[warfrog]

Well, warfrog, if you want to go back under the laws of the Jews, that's your deal.

Not going back to the law,i dont know why you dont understand that, the sacrifices represented Christ, not the laws, no man was redeemed from the laws, ever.
Abraham didnt look to the laws, he looked to God and beleived in the promises he literally would not recieve in his lifetime, yet he believed knowing God they would be recieved.
Just as Daniel spoke of the promise before it was even recieved, knowing God, he said in the Holy Ghost before the promise "The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand till I put your enemies under Your feet"

He didnt look to the laws, he followed them looking to Christ, that he would recieve even in death the promise, as all the righeous do.
The law always pointed to Christ and never redeemed anything, they were followed by holy men because holy men followed God. As i have said multiple times God was never pleased in animal blood, nor was He ever pleased in animal blood given as per commanded when it was done in emptyness, He was always pleased in the inward being performed outwardly in His command, which in the O.T was the law. He gave the law. He is the law.

Here is another perfect example of exactly why i mean the law was always mute, this man actions represent a man who followed the law to a tee but could not do so looking to Christ, he did not understand God's true desire in the law even as the True desire was speaking directly to him:

Matthew 19:16-22
16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”
17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18 He said to Him, “Which ones?”
Jesus said, “ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”
20 The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions

He followed the law, yet asked how he could recieve eternal life, he was doing exactly what the O.T men were doing, yet Jesus didnt say you have done well you shall recieve, He told him to follow Him, give your posessions (A direct command from God being given) and follow me, this man followed the law to a tee yet it did not mean eteral life, 1. He couldnt understand God or the promise, if he could he would have first, followed the command given from God "give up your posessions" and second "follow me" he did neither, he did not know God even with a lifelong submission to the law under his belt, he never understood the laws representation as it stood before him speaking directly to him and giving Him a command, the law itself was always mute to God, it always represented Christ and never saved men from anything, the righteous performed it knowing God, knowing His promise and not looking to the law itself but to Christ through Gods command in the law.
He also did not believe God when He told him you will recieve treasure in heaven if you give up your posessions, he was tied up with his love of wordly objects/posession.