Difficult Questions we are asked about faith and practice.

[8thdaypriest]

Ron, Thanks for the word study. I was aware of it.

I don't think ANYTHING I could say here would change your mind. I've been around this tree with an old friend who is (DNA) Jewish, and has adopted your view. She is now saying that I cannot PROVE from the Old Testament that Yeshua was/is Messiah. She is leaving Yeshua to become Jewish. This is happening more and more, as Torah Keepers loose site of Yeshua as our ONLY sacrifice for sins past.

If Satan brings about a war in the Middle East and the Dome on the Rock is destroyed, the way will be opened for a Third Temple to be restored on the Mount. All of the prophecies of Daniel 9 could then be fulfilled within that counterfeit context, including an Antichrist who will "take away the daily (sacrifice)". The Mount would be "given to the Gentiles for a time, times, and a part. Etc. etc. etc. It is a PERFECT scenario for a counterfeit Second Coming, by Satan who will then "sit in the Temple of God showing himself that he is God." My great fear is that thousands of Hebrew Roots and Messianic believers will travel to Jerusalem to worship that being who then sits in the Temple - saying that he is Messiah.

We need an evangelical on this thread to give that viewpoint - that EVERYTHING has been abolished - including the 10Cs. Those are the two opposite ends of the argument.

NOTHING of Torah has been changed vs

EVERYTHING has been changed

I'm saying that the old remedy for transgressions HAS BEEN CHANGED, (NOT the Covenant of the Ten Commandments).

We come to the Father - now - thru Christ - NOT thru animal sacrifice.

The Hebrew Roots teachers say that the only thing annulled was the man-made Rabbinic Law.

If I understand those teachers correctly - we will be going up to Jerusalem whenever we sin, in the Kingdom - to offer a sin-offering. We will also kill, and bleed out whole burnt offerings and peace offerings, especially at the Feasts.

I know of only one place in the NT where Paul went up to Jerusalem, and paid money so that a few men could fulfill their vow. He had been pressured to prove that He upheld "the Law of Moses". We all know what the LORD allowed to happen to him in the Temple court. I think he crossed the line - just like Moses did when He struck the rock. He also crucified HIM "again."

Are you seriously saying that Paul did NOT argue against physical circumcision for Gentiles coming to Christ?? THAT WAS "a change of the Law."

Galatians 5:11 And as for me, brothers, if I am still preaching that circumcision is necessary, why am I still being persecuted? (Gal 5:11 CJB) "As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these try to compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ." (Gal 6:12).

OBVIOUSLY - He was NOT preaching circumcision, because he WAS being persecuted.

To be physically circumcised was understood as a commitment to the entire Torah - including the sacrificial law.

Let me see:

NIV Isaiah 11:9 They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.

Don't know 'bout you, but killing a lamb is destroying it. Are we all going to be carnivores too?

KJV Galatians 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. (Gal 3:19 KJV)

The "law of sacrifices" was ADDED BECAUSE Eve and then Adam transgressed "The Everlasting Covenant". This "addition" would last "UNTIL" Messiah. AFTER that - Messiah would become the "Lamb that taketh away the sin of the world."

www.prophecyviewpoint.com

Shalom

Rachel

[8thdaypriest]

I think we will need to abandon this thread of "short answers" to difficult verses. It has turned into a discussion of the LAW. Sorry about that.

Shalom

[8thdaypriest]

Ron said,

"Handwriting of ordinances" is found in Colossians 2:14 where it refers to a man-made document that was nailed to the cross listing the accusation against the condemned person.

The word "ordinances" is translated from the Greek word dogmansin, which is never used in the Greek Scriptures (the Septuagint) to refer to anything that God commanded or instructed.

God decreed death for the violator of His Covenant.

"Dying you shall die." Gen. 2:17

Just as in the Roman era, the charge was read out, and then nailed above the head of the one to be executed by crucifixion, so God's "death decree" for all of us, because of our transgression of His covenant, was nailed to that cross.

The continuation of the sacrificial system AFTER God sent His Lamb, WAS (and is) a "man made" dogma.

Paul equates physical circumcision (a blood sacrifice) with "becoming a debtor to keep the whole law" with its death penalty for imperfect performance. And THAT he calls "a yoke of bondage." Gal. 5:1-6

Shalom

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron, Thanks for the word study. I was aware of it.

[Ron Amnsn]

Are you seriously saying that Paul did NOT argue against physical circumcision for Gentiles coming to Christ??

If you're really interested you can search my past posts on circumcision.

[8thdaypriest]

Guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

shalom

Rachel

[Ron Amnsn]

The continuation of the sacrificial system AFTER God sent His Lamb, WAS (and is) a "man made" dogma.

Not so.

It was God who instructed that two lambs were to be offered daily on the altar throughout the generations of the Israelites. (Exodus 29:38-42) As you know, the generations of the Israelites continued after Jesus died. So the priests who continued to offer the sacrifices daily were being obedient to God's instructions.

Even if God had absolutely commanded Paul to write in one of his epistles that the priests in Jerusalem were to immediately stop offering all sacrifices, that command would have come decades too late to prevent the continuation of the sacrifices after the death of Jesus. As you know, God did not command Paul to write any such thing, and God did not command the cessation of sacrifices through any other means. So God's original instructions to offer daily sacrifices at the Temple would still be valid.

That matches what we read in the New Testament about how the followers of Jesus were continually at the Temple (see the last verse of Luke), the only place on earth where the animal sacrifices were offered as God had instructed.

Acts tells us that the followers of Jesus were at the temple daily and were respected by all the people. That wouldn't have been the case if the apostles had been teaching what you are teaching. Imagine a faithful Jew traveling for many days to Jerusalem in order to offer a sacrifice at the Temple only to be met in the courtyard by a person like you telling him that his sacrifice was an insult to God. How would that go over? Not well. The fact that the followers of Jesus were respected by all the people worshiping at the Temple lets us know that they were not teaching what you are teaching, Rachel.

[8thdaypriest]

Ron,

Do you believe that the Book of Hebrews belongs in the Bible?

Monte Judah of Lion and Lamb Ministries, published an article in the July issue of Yavoh. In that article he says that the Book of Hebrews was not of God, and does not belong in the Canon.

I know that Rico Cortes, Bill Cloud and others do NOT agree with him.

www.prophecyviewpoint.com

Shalom

[8thdaypriest]

Acts tells us that the followers of Jesus were at the temple daily and were respected by all the people. That wouldn't have been the case if the apostles had been teaching what you are teaching. Imagine a faithful Jew traveling for many days to Jerusalem in order to offer a sacrifice at the Temple only to be met in the courtyard by a person like you telling him that his sacrifice was an insult to God. How would that go over? Not well. The fact that the followers of Jesus were respected by all the people worshiping at the Temple lets us know that they were not teaching what you are teaching, Rachel.

Hmmm

Yes, they were at the Temple (Acts 5:42)"preaching Jesus as the Christ", but they were NOT "respected by all the people." They were arrested, threatened, beaten, and stoned (like Stephen). "And Saul, a devout Pharisee "was consenting to his death." (Acts 8:1). They were hunted down and brought back to Jerusalem in chains (Acts 9:1).

[8thdaypriest]

Imagine a faithful Jew traveling for many days to Jerusalem in order to offer a sacrifice at the Temple only to be met in the courtyard by a person like you telling him that his sacrifice was an insult to God. How would that go over? Not well.

Imagine that faithful Jew, on Pentecost - hearing Peter preach, seeing the miracles, learning that his sins are now forgiven because God has offered HIS LAMB. He has only to be baptized in the name of Jesus "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38).

What amazing freedom!!

[Ron Amnsn]

Do you believe that the Book of Hebrews belongs in the Bible?

Yes, Hebrews belongs in the Bible. There's nothing in it that contradicts the Old Testament, when it's interpreted in context.

I think Monte Judah has rejected Hebrews because he couldn't get past the traditional misinterpretations of Hebrews that have been handed down through the church of the Roman empire. The others have taken the time to interpret the book of Hebrews within the Jewish context of the day.

[8thdaypriest]

Ron,

Did every sacrifice symbolize Christ, or only the "sin offering" ?

[Ron Amnsn]

Yes, they were at the Temple (Acts 5:42)"preaching Jesus as the Christ", but they were NOT "respected by all the people."

You seem to be talking about the religious leaders and politicians. I was talking about the common people who came to worship.

"and they were all with one accord in Solomon's portico. But none of the rest dared to associate with them; however, the people held them in high esteem." (Acts 5:12-13 NASB)

[8thdaypriest]

Ron,

I think it is good for the folks at this forum to see both sides of the argument, and then they can make up their own minds. But we MUST respect each other as sincerely seeking the will of God.

After I published "The 8th Day", my old friend - who believes as you do, that the sacrifice of animals should continue if a Temple is rebuilt on the Mount before the second coming - told me that I am teaching antichrist doctrine. She told me that I will loose my crown if I continue, and do not repent.

If our discussion deteriorates to that level, I won't continue to dialog with you.

Let's say there is a Hebrew word translated "a color." You say that's orange, and I say it's blue. How can we come together? We are reading the SAME words, but each interpreting them differently.

Shalom

www.prophecyviewpoint.com

[Ron Amnsn]

Imagine that faithful Jew, on Pentecost - hearing Peter preach, seeing the miracles, learning that his sins are now forgiven because God has offered HIS LAMB. He has only to be baptized in the name of Jesus "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38).

[Ron Amnsn]

Did every sacrifice symbolize Christ, or only the "sin offering" ?

Scripture goes into some detail telling how the people and priests were to do all the various types of sacrifices. It doesn't provide much detail regarding the symbolism of those sacrifices. That may indicate that the symbolism wasn't the only purpose of the sacrifices.

[8thdaypriest]

Hi Jackson,

Jesus said, "Your House is left unto you desolate."

That would be the Temple. It was left desolate of God's presence there. There is no point in going to that Mount. Our LORD is ministering as High Priest in Heaven above. That is where we direct our prayers.

As for offerings and sacrifices, they are to be "spiritual" now.

The Apostolic Writings give several examples of “spiritual” sacrifices:

1. praise and thanks to God (Heb. 13:15),

2. our lives dedicated to God (2 Tim. 4:6),

3. the service of faith (Phil. 2:17),

4. our bodies (Rom. 12:1),

5. gifts to the poor (Phil. 4:18),

6. visiting the sick or those in prison (Matt. 25:34-40),

7. and offerings in support of the ministry (1 Cor. 9:13).

Only men who were circumcised could enter the Temple court. Paul argues in Galatians that any man who has himself circumcised has "fallen from grace" and has "separated himself from Christ." Without that physical circumcision, a man could NOT worship at the Temple in Jerusalem anyway, much less offer animal sacrifice. (The sinner himself had to slit the throat of the animal.)

If the followers of Yeshua had traveled up to the Mount to offer sacrifice (after His death), within a few years the authorities in control of that Mount and that City would have been watching for them, to kill them. Jesus did not want that.

I personally believe that the LORD allowed that House to be destroyed, and the the spot taken over by the Gentiles, SO THAT His people would disperse to spread the Gospel. Just as he confused the language of the builders of Nimrod's Tower, to scatter them, he restored the languages (thru the gift of tongues), so that the Gospel could be spread over the world.

www.prophecyviewpoint.com

Blessings

Rachel

[8thdaypriest]

Hi Jackson,

I think that Ron A. is the only one on this forum advocating for continuation of animal sacrifices, should the Temple on the Mount be rebuilt BEFORE the Second Coming. But the Hebrew Roots movement and the Messianic Movement now have many branches and they are growing. I try to find good answers for them. I would say that among Sabbath Keepers, those movements outnumber SDAs in many areas. They do in mine.

They believe that Christ will set up His kingdom at the beginning of the 7th millennium, and will then reign for 1000 years on this earth. I don't agree with that tenet. I see the prophecy of the ancient types coming to fulfillment at "the "8th day" - not at the 7th.

They of course, do NOT subscribe to any EGW statement as "proof" of anything.

I don't want to get off into the weeds, talking about time periods.

We could start a new thread.

Only a few historians agree with the 457BC date for the command of Artaxerxes I. Most historians today place the crucifixion in Spring of 33, not in 31. NASA says that in 33, at sunset of Passover, a full moon rose with a full lunar eclipse, making the moon blood red. So the day for year doesn't exactly line up.

I cannot use Daniel 9:25 to prove that Christ brought an end to the system of animal sacrifice.

Messianics and Hebrew Roots believe Daniel 9:25 refers to AntiChrist, an "annointed prince" of sorts - who - they say - will "take away the daily" and thus bring an end to "sacrifice and offering."

For me, the understanding of the 70 sevens is still unclear. I think it could have had a fulfillment when Christ was "cut off" for us, and brought in everlasting righteousness, and anointed the Most Holy with His blood. But it could also have a fulfillment at the end of this age.

Sorry - to be unclear with this prophecy - but I don't have it nailed down myself.

Shalom

Rachel

[JoeMo]

Quote:

I cannot use Daniel 9:25 to prove that Christ brought an end to the system of animal sacrifice.

I gotta go with Rachel on this one. If people look at the original language or an interlinear, there is nothing (except the translator's own opinion) to indicate that "the" or "an" annointed one means Jesus. Some translators may have assumed that to be so, but that don't make it so.

[8thdaypriest]

Jesus' death in 30 AD fits perfectly with historical records and the prophecy of Daniel.

Jackson,

I hope you are correct. Because that will mean we are all going HOME that much sooner!!

[8thdaypriest]

I also agree that Yeshua died at 3PM on Friday.

Most of the Hebrew Roots, and Messianic Movement people teach that He died on a Wednesday and rose at sunset of Sabbath.

There is a long study at my website on this one.

It's titled "Three Days and Three Nights." It is interesting - all those little details that had to fit the prophetic types.

Blessings

Rachel

www.prophecyviewpoint.com

[joeb]

As for offerings and sacrifices, they are to be "spiritual" now.

This is taught in the OT too. God never really wanted blood and gore. That was always symbolic and was there only to teach the people of that day how evil sin really is. He wanted a humble, teachable, spirit that would repent after sinning. That's why we're told that David was a man after God's own heart.

[Ted Oplinger]

To expand that thought a little further, JoeB, both the OT and the NT taught the sacrifices to be viewed as spiritual. From Adam and Abel, to the last morning daily offered up on the altar on the day Christ was crucified, every sacrifice was to be viewed as a parable that allowed the sinner to go through the steps God was taking to redeem man - both corporately and individually - from sin. God never designed the sacrificial system to be a means to an end with regard to salvation, worship, and atonement...and He predicted man would turn His system of illustration and grace into the legalistic monstrosity that would cause Israel to both be forced into exile, then (upon return), reject their Messiah that every particular of the OT sanctuary system pointed to.

Blessings,