|
Post by Nothing But the Blood on May 5, 2009 4:31:06 GMT -8
why then does ezekiel record sacrifices during the new jerusalem? i agree with what i think you are saying, except you are viewing it from a wrong perpective on some things. those laws that were a shadow of Yeshua now are not done looking forward to him, rather, they are looking back and remmebering as we will do in ezekiels olam haba (world to come). and now, since Yeshua has taken away our yetzer hara and atones for all previious sins, we can 'go and sin no more' and 'be perfect as YHVH is perfect.' so with this ultimate sacrifice, we no longer neecd the previous sacrifices not because they are abolished but because we will no longer sin. shalom- john As with any prophecy, humans can often misinterpret stuff. I do not have a full understanding of Ezekiel and the prophecy within that book. Someone who is more knowledgeable can take on that question. I think all too often humans have misunderstood what a particular prophecy means until after it has actually taken place. The prophecies about Jesus are an example of this. Most Jews read the prophecies about the Messiah and came up with an understanding that actually prevented them from seeing Jesus as the Messiah. They were looking for someone who would meet their expectations of what they thought the Messiah would be. And Scripture says that even Jesus' disciples did not fully understand until after He had been raised from the dead. I think we need to be really careful how we interpret prophecies that have not yet taken place. I've met a lot of Christians online who are so set in how they think end times prophecies will be like, saying stuff like "this is what this means from Daniel and this is what it is referring to in Revelation." The problem with that is that another online Christian friend would take those same verses and come up with an entirely different interpretation. I think that focusing on prophecy too much can actually hinder our relationship with God because often times it is a person's interpretation of future prophecy that becomes the person's gospel instead of Jesus Christ. That's what I noticed with one of these online friends. When he was trying to witness to people, he was talking about end times prophecy, and this was what he was preaching to those who did not know Jesus. He said nothing about Jesus Himself or about what He did for us. As Paul said, there can be no other foundation than Jesus Christ. That is why I hesitate to state anything about the end times beyond the fact that things are going to get bad, there will be false prophets and false teachers, there will be an Anti-Christ, many people will be led astray, and finally Jesus will return. I think it's good to be familiar with Scripture about the end times, but I think we need to be really careful about interpretation. If your interpretation is correct, and there will be sacrifices offered after Jesus returns, then that will be how it is. All will be revealed and made clear. If we do sacrifices to remember what Jesus did, I obviously will have no argument to make before God. What He says goes. However, nowhere in the New Testament that I know of, are people commanded to make sacrifices to God AFTER Jesus' death and resurrection. After the temple was destroyed, it would have been difficult to do this anyway. Now what exactly is the yetzer hara? If you said it before, I missed it. From the context of how you used it here, I'm guessing that it has something to do with original sin and the sinful nature. If this is what you mean, then I have to say that I respectfully disagree. I do agree that Jesus' death atones for our sin, and that He paid the price. But I disagree with the rest of what you said. What you are saying seems very similar to the Jehovah's Witness interpretation of Jesus' death. They believe that Jesus' death on the cross only paid for Adam's original sin, and that it removes our tendency toward sin. They believe that with Jesus' death, people now have the opportunity of earning their way into heaven by being good Jehovah's Witnesses and by being obedient to what the Watchtower says. This is what they mean when they use the word grace. For them it is not unmerited favor. Rather, it is the opportunity that they now have to be a good Jehovah's Witness and earn their own way. Is this an accurate reflection of what you are saying here? (Now I know that you are not a Jehovah's Witness, so the Watchtower stuff does not apply. But the concept is the same. This is what it seems to me you are saying: Jesus died on the cross for our original sin/tendency toward sin, and we are now no longer a slave to sin. We now can earn our own way into heaven by following all of the Laws so that we can be perfect before God.) If this isn't what you are saying, then please clarify. There are a couple of problems that I see with this perspective. The first would be that this definition of grace is different from what I find in Scripture. Also, this would imply a gospel of works based salvation. On top of this, it does not reflect reality. All of us who are believers still struggle with sin and with the sinful nature. If our tendency towards sin was taken away when we placed faith in Christ, then why do we all still sin? If you go back to the standard of love -- then any time we are not loving God with everything that we are, we are in sin. Every time that we do not treat someone out of love, we are in sin. I know that although I try to live my life for Christ, I still fall short of God's perfect standard. Sometimes I still act in ways that are contrary to how God would have me act. It's not that I do this on purpose, but it just happens. I'm not going to use this as an excuse to compare myself to others. As an example, I could say, "oh, look how that person lives their life....look how sinful they are. I know I'm not that bad." I think we all fall into this trap. A thought like this is actually sinful. Why? Because whenever you compare yourself to another person, one of the people always comes up short. It's not a loving way to think about either yourself or another person, and it causes pride -- including negative pride. (If you are the one that falls short, it causes you to focus on yourself and how bad you are. If you are the one who comes up better, then it causes you to think that you are better than the other person because of how you are living your life). However, I have done this. I have compared myself to others. What really matters is God's standard, and by ourselves, we will always fall short of His standard. That's why we need Christ. After salvation, the Holy Spirit helps us in the sanctification process by pointing out areas of our life that need work, including any sin in our lives. I don't think that sanctification means there is no longer any tendency toward sin, or that we will never sin again. Also, there is some Scripture that would make very little sense if we no longer had any tendency towards sin after we were saved. I honestly cannot say that I know one person, who after being saved, has ALWAYS acted out of love for God in everything that they did, and ALWAYS acted out of love for other people in everything that they did. I'm not saying that we HAVE to sin, either. I simply don't think it is accurate to say that after a person is saved, they will never sin.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on May 5, 2009 11:38:34 GMT -8
understandable- you position. but you must also realize many argue that there will be an antichrist, etc. so even by saying this, you are kindof breaking "your personal code of silence" for end time prophecies.
but you must realize that ezekiel says staight out that there will be sacrifices in the end times. and the peshat can never be overrriden by RDS... so there WILL be sacrifices in the end times. no matter what. you cannot deny it.
NOOO!!! i definately believe that Yeshua took away our Yetzer hara, but not that we gain salvation through works. NO NO NO NO NO!!! i understand that you dont understand- the exlamation marks are not in anger but in utter rejection of the JW view of salvation.
and we are not supposed to sin after we recieve salvation. our circumcision of the Yetzer hara is gradual, being revealed progressively. we tackle the Yetzer hara with the power of Yeshua every day so that eventually we can be ressurected, and translated so that the Yetzer hara- the foreskin of the FLESH (after we are translated, our bodiess are no longer flesh)- can be FULLY removed. right now we are mainly spiritually circumcising through faith... this can be fulfilled all the way.but the circumcision of the yetzer hara wont fully be done until our spirit is stripped of its flesh and replcaed with the new creation of YHVH, where we will becomesons of YHVH. we are sons of YHVH now spiritually, but will later be sons of god physically. because shaul says that we are sons of God in one place, but in another he says the earth awaits for us to becaom sons of YHVH- he is referring to the bodily and spiritual adoption.
but remember that we will eventually becaom perfect. and it is possible not to sin after salvation.
shalom- john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 5, 2009 13:13:05 GMT -8
just a couple interjections/ clarifications: yeshuafreak: I am correct in assuming you accidentally left out a "not", as in "many argue that there will not be an antichrist"? That is my position, that the antichrist was Nero and ancient Rome. Since I am an amillenialist and partial preterist (or, technically a believer that we are currently in the millenium), I see the "great tribulation" as already past, but I do see a future release of satan from bondage which will probably mean dark, deceptive times before the second coming. If you're interested in discussing the millenium or tribulation please reply to or start a thread in the eschatology sub-forum
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 5, 2009 13:26:18 GMT -8
One other note, I haven't read up on it thoroughly recently, but I'm of the current perspective that the references to a future temple/sacrifices in Ezekiel should be taken as symbolic of the Church. I'm going to copy this and paste it as a new topic in the Eschatology and Ezekiel's sub-folders, because this is a very tricky subject from both perspectives (literal or symbolic). Here's the link: www.aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=eschatology&thread=1989
|
|
|
Post by Nothing But the Blood on May 5, 2009 13:44:45 GMT -8
This is really a non-issue for me. As I said in my last post....if there is sacrifice after Jesus returns, then there is sacrifice after He returns. All will be made clear then. If He still wishes us to offer sacrifices for the reason that you suggested -- looking back to what Jesus has done for us, fine. Whatever God says goes. So if He asks me to sacrifice then, I shall do so. No NT author that I'm aware of gave a command to continue offering sacrifices after Christ rose from the dead. This does not mean that no one did, or that the disciples did not teach it. However, it does suggest that they did not think it a very important issue. The author of Hebrews speaks of Jesus being an eternal sacrifice, and that we do not need any more. Until Jesus returns, He is my only sacrifice. Once He has returned, then I will do whatever He says. If it means offering sacrifice, then so be it. I apologize if I misunderstood. I'm attempting to figure out what your position is. This may take some time, and it may take having to repeat yourself a few times before I'm able to understand your beliefs. I'm sorry...I don't understand how this is not earning your way...or at least earning your way to be resurrected. I need to you to elaborate on this so that any difference between salvation by works and your view can be clearly seen. Maybe again this is due to differences of viewpoint. From my understanding, we get to be resurrected because of God's promise about this, because of what Jesus has done. Jesus has paid the full price for all our sin. All or our righteousness comes from Jesus...in other words, we are only righteous because of Him. His blood covers our sin, and we are now justified because of Jesus' blood. We are reconciled to God. All of our sin is forgiven. I don't see the need for us to do anything to be resurrected, nor do I think we could ever earn this. Jesus is victorious, and we have hope of being resurrected because of Jesus' bodily resurrection. You say that our bodies will not be flesh. Are you using the term "flesh" to mean the sinful nature, or are you using it here literally -- as in our physical flesh. It's because of the confusion that can come from these two different meanings that I do not quote from the NASB when discussing verses about this. It's too easy for the two definitions of "flesh" to be confused in an online conversation. (The NASB has used the term flesh when it is referring to the sinful nature, and also when it is referring to the physical body). If your definition of flesh here refers to physical flesh, then I have to disagree with you. Jesus' body when He was resurrected was a real, physical body. It was the same body that He died in, but it was transformed into the resurrected type. Jesus had Thomas put his fingers into his hands and side. He also told them that He had flesh and bone. From my understanding of Scripture, I believe that we also will receive the same kind of resurrected body that He was resurrected in. In other words, I believe it will be physical. I agree with you that we are not supposed to sin after we are saved. This does not mean that we will never sin. Sin still grieves God. Obviously we should not be doing anything to grieve God. What Scripture are you using to support this? What you're saying sounds a little like manifest sons of god doctrine, which many Christians, including me, consider to be heretical. I'm guessing you're talking about Romans 8....so let us look at the context of the verses. (And I could use some help from other Christians on this board. Please offer whatever explanation you can.) When I read Romans 8, I don't get the same meaning that you are suggesting it has. From what I get out of it, I think it is talking about being adopted. It seems to me from other biblical passages that everyone who trusts in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior receives the Holy Spirit and is adopted into God's family. Beyond this, I don't know what else to say. I do not see the passage speaking of physically becoming sons of God. I said that I was NOT saying that we have to sin. What I'm pointing out is that I do not know any Christian who has not sinned once they were saved. I was arguing against the suggestion that believers no longer sin at all.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 5, 2009 13:47:29 GMT -8
Well said.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 5, 2009 18:19:37 GMT -8
yeshuafreak wrote:
I understand the difficulty. This topic isn't just some isolated thing- we're discussing very complicated theology interwoven throughout the Scripture.
But I appreciate you sticking with the conversation! i think it's worthwhile even for the simple sake of understanding each other better.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on May 6, 2009 11:47:13 GMT -8
because you will not do this to earn your way to salvation, you will do this becasue you recieved salvation.
if you will only do Yeshuas will when he comes to earth, than you are living in darkness, sin and death.
i do mean the literal flesh. our bodies MUST be changed for flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. we will be changed in a twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. this process of being clothed with malakhut (garments of angels), is called 'translation' in the enliish, is seperate from the resurection. we will be 'raptured' after the ressurection, and those who are alive will even be translated so it has to be seperate from the ressurection. Yeshua did not have his body translated until he ascended with the rest of the ressurected saints. this was a 'rapture.'
i dont realize what part of this doctrine we are talking about right here. i dont realize what you do and dont like about it.
i understand this, i was merely making a point.
than you should be doing so NOW. if there are going to be sacrifices in the future, than there are sacrifices now.
the father of lights has no variableness (James 1)
he is the same yesterday today and forever (hebrews)
these ordinances are to be observed FOREVER (leviticus)
etc etc etc. my point is that YHVH's law does not change. sometimes, the application does (which is not recorded in the law itself, and why the rabbis produced oral law- to esxplain aplication). the commandment of the tzitzit was meant for ALL 4 cornered garments when it was written. but, this became very hard to do, seeing as how most garments are no longer 4 cornered. so the rabbis came up with an idea to make a tallit. (btw- Yeshua wore a tallit).
you know what let me stop and ask a question that may clear up some of your theology in my mind. IS anyone here a 'dispesationalist?' if you are, that would explain alot.
shalom- john
|
|
|
Post by Nothing But the Blood on May 6, 2009 14:35:45 GMT -8
I thought rapture meant catching away, but I could be wrong. And what you are saying about Jesus, as well as what will happen to us is speculation. (I'm talking about the "translated" part). Scripture does not explicitly teach it. Therefore, it is dangerous to teach it. I don't find support for it in the Bible. here's a link that talks about the manifest sons of god doctrine www.apologeticsindex.org/m22.htmlletusreason.org/Latrain1.htmwww.discernment-ministries.com/misc/StrangeFire.pdfI realize that you are not claiming manifest sons of god doctrine in its entirety, but some of what you're saying seems very similar to it. If you choose to read these websites, do so with the understanding that some of the people behind these articles, I think, have gone a little bit far in condemning what a personal relationship with God is. Still, I think what they have to say is important, and they all do oppose the manifest sons of god doctrine. Also, when reading the second online article, please realize that some of this is dated. Bob Jones has been kicked out of Vineyard for promoting heresy and because he had women undress in his office. Mike Bickle is no longer in the Vineyard either. I don't know whether he was kicked out or whether he chose to leave. Neither Bob Jones nor Mike Bickle have been part of the Vineyard for years. Also, several churches were kicked out of Vineyard for their extremes in the signs and wonders stuff. Jesus is enough for me. He is my sacrifice. Hebrews 9 19For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,20saying, "THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHICH GOD COMMANDED YOU." 21And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood.22And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. 23Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.
26Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.27And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,28so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him. Hebrews 10 1For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.2Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins?3But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year.4For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, "SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME; 6IN WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE TAKEN NO PLEASURE. 7"THEN I SAID, 'BEHOLD, I HAVE COME (IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME) TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD.'" 8After saying above, "SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them" (which are offered according to the Law),9then He said, "BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL." He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD,13waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. 15And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, 16"THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM," He then says, 17"AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE." 18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin. I'm not really sure since I'm not really certain what dispensationalists believe. I've heard several definitions of it, but not a clear definition. One of my friends last year asked me if I was one. My answer is that I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on May 6, 2009 15:50:58 GMT -8
rapture does mean catching away, but translation happens right before or during the rapture. the two witnesses will be raptured, the 144000 jews will be raptured, Yeshua and the ressurected saints were raptured, and the ressurected will be raptured. all of these people will be translated.
as for translation not being in scripture, read:
boy i love biblegateway. - this is only one of the verses, but explains it most clearly.
i will look at manifest sons of God doctrine and report back.
as for hebrews i already interpreted these verses. it is not that the sacrifices are abolished, but they are not needed on someone who is perfected in 'going and sinnning no more' and 'being perfect just as the father in heaven is perfect.' this is done by taking away sins- atoneing for previous sins, and taking away the yetzer hara so that there will be no more sin in the future. we are told to be perfect. in james, all the epistles of shaul, and peter even proclaims it, and jude makes known how corrupt we are. he knows we can be perfect, but he also knows we are choosing not to be as believers, and he shows the consequences of those who sinned when they were able to be perfect- like the angels. my definition of perfect agrees with wesleys.
i will explain dispensationalism when i reply to the MSOG doctrine.
shalom- john
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on May 6, 2009 15:58:12 GMT -8
almost nothing in the MSOG doctrine is true. you are REALLY misunderstanding me... i mean MAJORLY. i am not anywhere CLOSE to agreeing with the MSOG doctrine, nor the doctrine of JW, which you also identified with my doctrines.
the only thing i agree with the MSOG is the fact that we will be given glorified bodies. but everyone believes this if they seriously look in scripture- whether you think it to be of flesh, or not of flesh, shaul makes sure you know that they are glorified. they are immortal as compared to the mortal corperate bodies of this time.
dispensationalism (DIS' pin' sa' shun' ul' ism) :
Dispensationalism is a Protestant evangelical theology and interpretive framework for understanding the overall flow of the Bible. Rooted in the writings of John Nelson Darby, the term derives from the concept of a "dispensation" or administration referring to a series of chronologically successive dispensations that emphasize certain Biblical covenants, and that the nation of Israel is distinct from the Church.
shalom- john
|
|
|
Post by christopher on May 6, 2009 18:56:31 GMT -8
Yeshuafreak wrote:
I used to be, until I started exploring the alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 6, 2009 21:11:26 GMT -8
I'm behind on reading this thread, but just in response to yf's question:
I am decidedly not a dispensationalist, though like Chris I used to have some leanings that way.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on May 7, 2009 2:42:18 GMT -8
so why didi you stop following dispensationalsim?
anyone cov't theologians?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 7, 2009 14:50:16 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 7, 2009 15:04:08 GMT -8
So, a couple questions for yeshuafreak:
1) So, if you think we should still offer physical sacrifices according to the law (such as animal sacrifices), how are we to do that without a sacrificial system/ tabernacle/ temple?
2) If you think followers of Yeshua should still perform sacrifices, why the almost total (in my opinion total) lack of proof-texts for that in the New Testament.
3) Do you think the civil laws of the Mosaic covenant should also be followed today?
4) What about laws about uncleanness? How should they be applied today? Should a woman on her period refrain from attending church? Who would we show ourselves to after recovering from a skin disease in order to get a bill of cleanness?
None of these questions are asked sarcastically. I really want to hear your response to this sampling of questions so I can understand you better.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on May 7, 2009 15:56:09 GMT -8
1, we can. but YHVH cannot hold us accountable for what we cannot do.the third temple will be rebuilt soon though- it has everything ready except the authorization to build on the temple mount. even the sanctifying red heifer is here.
2. sacrifices are recorded abundantly in acts, and also texts outside the bible recording history. sin sacrifices are never spoken of as mandatory however, because if we didnt sin, than there would be no need. Yeshua makes it possible that we dont sin (it is possible not to sin without Yeshua however, but not to be sinless.. in other words, the sin cannot be atoned for, so you wouldnt get salvation). if we sin after being revealed the truth, than there is no longer any sacrifice for sins (this is referring to Yeshuas sacrifice) (hebrews.) be holy as your father in heaven is holy (torah, matthew) go and sin no more(the gospels).
3. again, civil laws cannot be done for two reasons. one because the UN probably wouldnt allow it. secondly because the theocratic state of Yisrael does not exist. but should we follow them- yes. not the way you think however. i am sure that your interpretation of those laws is that they are unfair. to kill a cchild for backtalking! what the hay! you know what i have to say- that is ignorance- not stupidity. ignorcance because the christian community for the most part does not understand or has not taught that original interpretation of these laws. look on even a RABBINICAL website about these laws and you will see how much the idea differs from popular beliefs.
4. laws of uncleanliness are undoubtedly to be observed today. but remember that it is not the act that cleanses, but the intention (havanah) behind the act. but if we have faith and inward conviction, we are naturally going to do works (if one claims to have faith but does not have faith, he is a child of darkness and in sin. faith without works is dead. faith cannot be present without works. it is faith that gains salvation, but works is a natural product of afith and the evidence of it as well). therefpre, it is the inward that cleanses, the outward that manifests that cleanliness. like baptism the actual act of baptism does not cleanse, but the inward repentance. (a)should a woman on her period refrain from attending church? i havent given this much thought, but let me pray about it. (b) who would we show ourselves to after recovering from a skin disease in order to get a bill of cleanliness? this is a hard question even to rabbinic jews. again, because the preisthood is not known anymore, and the temple is not here, we CANT- it isnt possible-do the things that these mitzvot require. and YHVH who is righteous will not hold us accountable for what cannot be done. it is against his nature.
you ask some hard questions! lol. just realize that if we are not able to do things, YHVH will not hold us accountable. ie, if a mitzvot is for a woman, and a man cannot do so, a man is not going to be held accountable for not following that mitzvot. same idea.
shalom- john
|
|