An end to sacrifices

[8thdaypriest]

FORGIVENESS

Acts 13:38-39  "Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.” (NKJ)

 

JUSTIFICATION

Romans 3:30 “since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.”  (NKJ)

 

Romans 10:10 “For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.” (NIV)

 

Hebrews 10:19-20 “So, brothers, we have confidence to use the way into the Holiest Place opened by the blood of Yeshua.  He inaugurated it for us as a new and living way through the parokhet, by means of his flesh.” (CJB)

Hebrews 4:16 “Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.”

 

We enter the Most Holy Place in the person of Christ.  We have grace, and justification, and forgiveness, and salvation thru HIS BLOOD. 

 

My salvation is assured - in Christ.  It would not matter if the Temple on the Mount WERE rebuilt next week, and I never went up to that Temple.  

[8thdaypriest]

Jackson said,

No. None of our sins, debts, trespasses etc were nailed to the cross.

 

I cannot agree with you there Jackson.

Jesus was nailed to the cross, and He carried ALL sin when He was nailed there.

With Him, all sin, debt, curse, iniquity, etc. WAS NAILED to that cross.   

 

Isaiah 53:6 And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. (NKJ)

[8thdaypriest]

2 Corinthians 5:21 "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

 

If Christ WAS SIN, then "sin" was nailed to that cross. 

[8thdaypriest]

Covenant with Adam:

Do NOT eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Dominion of earth is hereby given to you and your descendants.

Dominion of earth was lost to Satan, when Eve/Adam ate of the Tree. 

 

Covenant with Noah.

I will never again destroy the earth with a flood.

Do NOT eat blood. 

 

Covenant with Abraham:

Walk before me and be blameless.  Every male must be circumcised.

The land, I give to your and to your Seed.

(There is NO MENTION of writing the Law on his heart.)

Having a Son thru Hagar was the custom in his day.  The LORD did NOT call it a sin.)

 

Covenant with Israel @ Sinai.  (a Covenant of Marriage)

The Ten Commandments

Circumcision continued from Abrahamic Covenant.

The Feast Days to worship before the LORD

You will inherit the land.  You will have victory over your enemies.  You will not suffer from disease.  You (and all yours) will be fruitful.  You will enjoy peace. 

 

The NEW COVENANT OF MARRIAGE TO CHRIST

 

His sinless life, and His obedience unto death striving against sin fulfilled the terms of the Sinai Covenant, therefore He will be given "the land" (dominion of earth).

With the death of the betrothed "Groom", the Sinai Covenant was rendered "obsolete". 

 

We are now betrothed to Him thru a NEW Covenant of Marriage.

When He marries redeemed Israel, we (His redeemed) will share in His just reward for fulfillment of the Sinai Covenant (the land, peace, victory, fruitfulness, healing).

He will serve as judge and also execute judgment.  Some people will be retained within His "bride", and some will be "cut off". 

 

The promise, "I will put my spirit within you" will be fulfilled (fully and completely) only with His bride, WHEN Israel is gathered and returned to the land (See Ezekiel 36).

(We only have a taste of it now.  Like a "bride price".  Like a down payment, compared to the full price.)

 

While I agree that Christ has become the "Mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises",

I believe that the "better covenant" is the one promising Marriage to Our King, and that He will put His Spirit within us and we will share in His possessions.

 

I DO NOT AGREE that this "new" "second" and "better covenant" is the Abrahamic Covenant. 

 

The Sinai Covenant is the only one rendered "obsolete" by the death of "the husband".

The promises to Noah, Abraham, & David will be fulfilled by the LORD who made those promises.

The Gentiles could receive an inheritance BECAUSE OF the promise to Abraham. 

 

A sacrifice initiated the Abrahamic Covenant.  (It was a BLOOD COVENANT.)

Blood sprinkled on the Book, the Tent, and the People initiated the Sinai Covenant.  (IT WAS A BLOOD COVENANT.)

The "blood of Christ" initiated the New Covenant. (It too is a BLOOD COVENANT.) 

 

The difference in the "sacrifice of Christ" was that it paid for sins committed under the first (Sinai) covenant, AND

it also paid for sins committed under the New Covenant.   BOTH.

 

Christ bought the whole human race.  He then - gets to decide who He will retain within His Kingdom, and who He will "cast out". 

 

I hope I explained that well enough. 

[8thdaypriest]

Jackson,

I don't believe that animal sacrifice is necessary.  I think I've stated that.

 

I just don't think that Daniel 9:24-27 can be used to prove that Christ died in the middle of the 70th week. 

Or that the "handwriting of ordinances" in Colossians 2:14-16 was the "ceremonial law" .

 

I appreciate you explaining why you hold the views that you do.

 

Rachel

[Ron Amnsn]

I'm sorry, I have been unable to keep up with the discussion in this thread.  I have only a limited amount of time to respond to the seemingly endless number of posts containing out-of-context Bible passages put forward to attempt to support the man-made traditions that have been handed down through the Roman church.  I still intend to respond to this thread, but my time is limited.

 

One of the reasons that Rachel and others have such a hard time convincing Hebrew Roots believers to change their beliefs, is that we (at least many of us) come to our beliefs and doctrines in a different way than most Christians do. 

 

When I was a Seventh-day Adventists my beliefs were handed to me as a package of church doctrines, and the Bible was used to "prove" those already-existing beliefs. When there was a "Bible Study", we didn't study the Bible to find out what it taught, rather we read selected sections of the Bible to confirm the doctrines of the denomination and the teachings of Ellen White.  We were handed specific interpretations of passages and taught that those interpretations were what the Bible taught.  I think of that as "backwards Bible study" because people start out with a conclusion that consists of what they have been taught and then they look in the Bible for passages that support those beliefs. But they filter out the Bible passages that conflict with their beliefs and accept the theological-sounding doctrines and theories that rationalize and make it appear "proper" to filter out of those passages or to "spiritualize" those passages rather than taking them at face value. 

 

Because the founders of the SDA church came from various denominations, they had to engage in real Bible study to figure out which of the various conflicting beliefs were correct.  But there remained a number of man-made doctrines that were already held in common by all those various denominations, so those beliefs were adopted without being challenged and those doctrines did not receive the same scrutiny as did the doctrines where there was disagreement.  In the areas where the founders engaged in real Bible study to resolve disagreements, they often ended up with a correct or better understanding of the Bible.  However, when we study the Bible with an assumption like "My church is always right," or "Ellen White is always right," or "My parents were always right," we are placing something else above God's Word and not really accepting the Bible as the authoritative Word of God.

 

Most Hebrew Roots believers use a different method of studying the Bible.  They (or their parents) usually started out in one of the various Christian denominations, but when they started reading their own Bibles they discovered places where the Bible disagreed with what they had been taught.  The more they studied the Bible, the more they found that they had been taught erroneous doctrines-- they had been [unintentionally] fooled.  So they became wary of packaged doctrines and looked for a better way to study the Bible.  Most started reading at Genesis, interpreting each passage in a way that agreed with the passages that came earlier in the Bible.  That's really easy to do with the vast majority of passages-- you just take God's Word at face value.  Sometimes you come to a passage that seems to conflict or disagree with what God revealed earlier (this tends to happen a bit more when you get to the New Testament). Those passages are very important because they reveal a topic that needs further study.  Such passages may reveal that you misinterpreted earlier passages, or that you made incorrect assumptions that you were not aware of, or that you have unconsciously inserted your own preconceived ideas into what you read, or that you need to look into the original language to see what the original words were and see how those words were used earlier (or later) in Scripture, or that you need a better understanding of the culture and lifestyle of Bible times.  When you have read the Bible through several times you also become aware of a number of teachings that are not in the Bible.  Each time you read the Bible completely through you watch for evidence to help refine your understanding of any conflicting passages that you encountered the last time through, and you look for evidence that sheds light on the topics you have been studying.  You also begin to recognize the assumptions you are bringing to your study so you can test those assumptions with the Scriptures. Two important assumptions that Hebrew Roots believers often make are "God's Word is true," and "God's Word agrees with itself."

 

One thing about the way Hebrew Roots believers study the Bible that often alarms traditional Christians is that earlier parts of the Bible end up carrying more weight than later parts of the Bible.  That's because each new piece is tested by what God revealed earlier to see whether the new piece is true.  This method of study is endorsed both in Isaiah 8:20 and in the New Testament in Acts 17:10-15 where the Bereans were commended for searching the Old Testament Scriptures daily to see whether Paul's teachings were true.  Paul's teachings passed that test back then, and they pass that test today when his writings are correctly interpreted.  However, for Christians who are accustomed to overthrowing God's Word in the Old Testament with some dubious interpretation of something Paul wrote in an epistle, the idea that the Old Testament should be used to test all interpretations of the New Testament can be very uncomfortable.

 

Do we have enough common ground to continue this discussion?

[Ron Amnsn]

There's another difference between Hebrew Roots believers and traditional Christians.  Hebrew Roots believers do not trace their religious heritage back through the Protestant reformation and Catholic Church (although most of us have been influenced by the progress towards truth made by the reformers).  Hebrew Roots believers see their true roots in the New Testament congregations of Jewish believers depicted in Acts.

 

Many traditional Christians view the Jewish believers in the book of Acts as "ignorant" because they continued to live as Jesus had taught them to live according to God's Old Testament instructions. However, Hebrew Roots Believers view the Spirit-filled congregation of Jewish believers in Jerusalem as the true model for living a Christ-like and grace-based life.  The church was later corrupted by the apostacy or "falling away" predicted by the apostle Paul (2 Thess 2:1-12) which Paul said was already at work and whose primary characteristic was "lawlessness" (literally "without law").

 

Because that congregation in Jerusalem was founded by the disciples of Jesus when the Holy Spirit was poured out and was lead by the disciples that Jesus trained himself, we believe that Jesus commanded his disciples to make disciples by teaching people to follow the example of Jesus and to live like they did themselves.  Those disciples were far from ignorant.  They had been with Jesus.  Two of their number had been given a personal Bible study by Jesus on the road to Emmaus, "Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures."  (Luke 24:27)   We think we learn a lot when we attend a weekend seminar taught by some prominent theologian, but the disciples were taught by Jesus himself for five solid weeks after the resurrection.   Yet according to Ellen White, "The Saviour said nothing to unsettle faith in the religion and institutions that had been given through Moses; for every ray of divine light that Israel's great leader communicated to his people was received from Christ." {Thoughts from the Mount of Blessings 47.1}

[8thdaypriest]

Ron,

You can't make your points here by putting down SDAs, or their way of Bible study, or by saying that they are clinging to Roman doctrine.    They are sincere, and they try very hard to understand the Word of God.  I don't see them as lazy.  I do think that their dependence upon Ellen White for interpretation, gets in the way of deeper study at times.  While many SDAs do read just the published Sabbath School Quarterly, many others dig deep and truly seek to understand. 

 

I used to read SP writings avidly.  Now - I don't know if she had visions, or spoke for God.  I definitely do not accept her as infallible.  (I know of too many errors in her writings.)  I set her writings aside some 26 years ago, when I left the denomination.  So, please don't tell me that I am dependent on Ellen White for interpretation. 

 

Non-SDAs and former SDAs are allowed on this forum, because many SDAs WANT to be challenged concerning their interpretations.  If they can face challenge coming from non-SDAs and then find and express answers to those challenges, it strengthens their stance.  THAT is one reason for the Theological Forum section.  I also come here to be challenged.  I think challenge is GOOD FOR US.  

 

It's easy to say that one takes the "Scripture Only".  Almost EVERY non-Catholic denomination says that.  The problem is that the Bible is NOT crystal clear on everything.  If it were, then there would not be 200+ Christian denominations.  We wouldn't have this forum, to talk about different interpretations.

 

The most important thing is whether we "love one another".  THAT is the sign that we have His Spirit. 

Audibly confessing faith in the risen Yeshua Messiah, baptism in His name, and then love - even for one's enemies - those are salvation issues,

NOT whether one plans to go up to Jerusalem to offer animal sacrifice at a rebuilt Temple. 

 

Anyway,

You are saying that your way of study is BETTER than the Adventist way, so that means your conclusions are TRUE and theirs are not.  

Well - I'm not an Adventist, and I currently disagree with you.  So what does that make my way of study?

 

I appreciate your participation Ron.  I WANT to understand your viewpoint.  Something of what you present may change my thinking.  

But you can't say that my study methods are "weak" every time I disagree with you, and expect me to meekly accept that. 

 

Blessings Always,

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint

[Ron Amnsn]

Hebrew Roots teachers emphasize the fact that Paul went up to the Temple to offer sacrifice, and that the believers in Jerusalem were "all zealous for the law" and continued to offer sacrifice also. 

 

What Hebrew Roots teachers are emphasizing is that God's Word is sure and dependable. If God told his people to do something "forever" or "throughout your generations", then we can be sure that it is okay to keep doing those things until God tells his people to stop doing those things.  Hebrew Roots believers recognize the continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament.  These are themes that are stated repeatedly in Scripture.  Hebrews Roots teachers emphasize all of God's Word, and they point out the New Testament passages that show that the apostles and believers in the New Testament continued to do the same.

 

When the Gentiles who did not value Torah became the leaders of the church after AD 135 they started looking for ways to disconnect from the Old Testament, so they latched on to a few passages that can be misconstrued to suggest that there were huge changes after the death of Jesus.  They emphasized those passages while concocting theories, doctrines and traditions to justify setting aside the instructions that God/Jesus gave us in Old Testament. 

 

The issue is the continuity of God's Word versus the setting aside of Gods' Word and replacing it with the doctrines of men.

[JoeMo]

Ron says:

"If God told his people to do something "forever" or "throughout your generations", then we can be sure that it is okay to keep doing those things until God tells his people to stop doing those things."

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, Ron; but based on what you said, how do you explain the following?

 

^" And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.  You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.  He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised; every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house, or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,  both he that is born in your house and he that is bought with your money, shall be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.  Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” (Gen. 17:9-14)

 

Yet, Paul (not God) says in Gal. 5:1-4:

"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.  Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace."

 

What gave Paul the right to negate one of God's "forever" laws? Could the same thing be true about the prevailing view of the end of animal sacrifice?  Or could the following words from Hebrews apply to anyone whos still subscribes to to first covenant?

 

"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming ageand who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace." (Heb. 6:4-6)

 ^"First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." ... "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?" (Heb. 10:8-10; 26-29)

[Ron Amnsn]

It's easy to say that one takes the "Scripture Only".  Almost EVERY non-Catholic denomination says that.  The problem is that the Bible is NOT crystal clear on everything.  If it were, then there would not be 200+ Christian denominations. 

 

I think the one of the differences between "Scripture Only" the way it is implemented in Christian denominations, and testing all interpretations by preceding Scriptures as I described, is that when you find two verses with interpretations that seem to disagree, the Scripture Only people have no way to authoritatively decide which one is "right".  So people must choose from a huge variety of interpretations and doctrines that seem to be equally valid, depending on which verses are given more "weight" or emphasis.  You end up with thousands of denominations with each of them setting aside some portion of God's Word that they think is obsolete..

 

But when you take the Bible in order, starting at the beginning, and you interpret each verse or passage so that it agrees with everything that came before it in the Bible, you can easily determine which verse is more authoritative -- the earlier one. (Unless God himself announces something new in a way that trumps something earlier.)  Knowing which passages are more authoritative makes it relatively easy to reject false interpretations and false teachings.  The first books of the Bible have more authority than those that come later.  You end up with a personal system of beliefs that accepts all of God's Word as authoritative.

[8thdaypriest]

I think the one of the differences between "Scripture Only" the way it is implemented in Christian denominations,

I take it that you are describing yourself as NOT belonging to a Christian denomination. 

I know that the Roman church persecuted Jews. 

I know that the Roman church persecuted Sabbath keepers.

But I don't take that as a reason not to be called Christian (believing in or serving Christ). 

 

The Jews persecuted the early followers of Christ too. 

[8thdaypriest]

In my mind, we still HAVE a sacrificial system and a priesthood.

We just have a BETTER sacrifice now - in Christ Jesus.

We have a BETTER high priest too. 

We come before the throne of God our Father, in the person of Christ. 

[Ron Amnsn]

I take it that you are describing yourself as NOT belonging to a Christian denomination.

 

That's right.  Because Jesus prayed for unity among his followers (John 17:11), and denominations cause divisions within the followers of Jesus, I believe that Jesus never authorized his followers to create denominations.

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron says:

"If God told his people to do something "forever" or "throughout your generations", then we can be sure that it is okay to keep doing those things until God tells his people to stop doing those things."

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, Ron; but based on what you said, how do you explain the following?

 

^" And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.  You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.  He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised; every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house, or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,  both he that is born in your house and he that is bought with your money, shall be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.  Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” (Gen. 17:9-14)

 

Yet, Paul (not God) says in Gal. 5:1-4:

"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.  Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace."

 

What gave Paul the right to negate one of God's "forever" laws?

 

Paul didn't negate one of God's "forever" laws -- he had no authority to do so.  Paul said several things about circumcision in his writings that seem to disagree with each other.  For instance, he wrote the passage you quote above, yet he circumcised Timothy himself.  If all the various things Paul wrote about circumcision referred to the same type of circumcision, then Paul himself put Timothy into a position where Christ would be of no value to Timothy.  Context helps us sort this stuff out. By the way, none of the things that Paul wrote against circumcision was applicable to eight-day-old male babies-- everything he wrote against circumcision applied to men old enough to make choices for themselves.

 

Paul led people to believe that he was Torah-observant, but if Paul was preaching against Abraham's kind of circumcision then he blew his cover big time and everyone would know that he was just a bumbling hypocrite. So what other kind of circumcision was there?  There was the the man-made proselyte program that the Jewish sages had developed to supposedly turn a Gentile into a Jew.  It was part of a "salvation by Jewishness" doctrine.  The proselytes that went through that lengthy program were taught to observe both God's Law of Moses plus the man-made oral laws and traditions that the Jewish sages developed to "guard" the Law of Moses. The proselyte program culminated with circumcision done according to the rituals added by the Jews -- three witnesses, and a solemn vow to observe the man-made laws along with the Law of Moses. The seventh deacon appointed in Acts 5, Nicholas, was a proselyte that had been through such a program. That proselyte program was the standard procedure for Gentile conversion until the decision of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15.

 

Because Paul taught that Gentile believers became heirs of Abraham, and that Abraham's covenant was not nullified by subsequent covenants (Gal 3:17), Paul was apparently allowing Gentile believers to be circumcised according to Abraham's covenant like Abraham was-- simple circumcision after salvation, but not as requirement for salvation.  The non-believing Jews at Galatia (and elsewhere) would still view these circumcised Gentiles as "uncircumcised" because they hadn't been circumcised according to the man-made requirements.  I believe it was to these already-circumcised believers in Galatia that Paul was writing in such strong language. If a man had already been circumcised but not according to the traditional Jewish rituals, the Jews would require him to be circumcised again before the Jews would consider him Jewish and therefore saved.

[Ron Amnsn]

... the temple sacrifices were no longer necessary, being nailed to the cross along with the other ceremonial laws

 

Colosians 2:14 says, "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;"  (KJV)

 

The word translated as "ordinances" in this verse is the Greek word "dogmasin" a form of the word "dogma".  If Paul was wanting to refer to any of God's Old Testament instructions, he used the wrong word.  In the Greek translation of the Old Testament that was in use in Paul's day (the Septuagint), the word "dogmasin" (or any form of "dogma") is never used to refer to any law or statute or ordinance made by God.  "Dogmasin" and "dogma" are used only to refer to man-made decrees and laws, usually the decrees of pagan rulers.  If Paul wanted to say that part of God's law had been nailed to the cross, he could have used one of several Greek words that is actually used in the Greek Old Testament to refer to God's law.  But Paul used a different word.  The interpretation of Colosians 2:14 that has been handed down to us saying that "ordinances" refers to God's "ceremonial" law being nailed to the cross is easily shown to be incorrect.

 

Also, the theory that God's law can be divided into categories (such as "ceremonial" and "moral") and that the so-called "ceremonial" law was temporary or disposable is an impressive-sounding theory, but it is not taught in Scripture. That man-made theory has been handed down to us from the Roman church and imposed onto the Scriptures providing a false framework for interpreting Scripture.

 

Also, nailing something to the cross doesn't appear to be a very effective method of rendering something obsolete.  Jesus himself was nailed to the cross.  Is Jesus now obsolete?

 

Colosians 2:14 has an awesome message of grace, even better than the erroneous interpretation that we were taught.  Colosians 2:14 is explained in more detail in the article "What was nailed to the Cross?". It also shows every occurrence of the word "dogmasin" in the Old Testament and explains how you can verify its use in Scripture for yourself using free Bible study tools. 

[8thdaypriest]

I think the one of the differences between "Scripture Only" the way it is implemented in Christian denominations, and testing all interpretations by preceding Scriptures as I described, is that when you find two verses with interpretations that seem to disagree, the Scripture Only people have no way to authoritatively decide which one is "right".  So people must choose from a huge variety of interpretations and doctrines that seem to be equally valid, depending on which verses are given more "weight" or emphasis.  You end up with thousands of denominations with each of them setting aside some portion of God's Word that they think is obsolete..

 

But when you take the Bible in order, starting at the beginning, and you interpret each verse or passage so that it agrees with everything that came before it in the Bible, you can easily determine which verse is more authoritative -- the earlier one. (Unless God himself announces something new in a way that trumps something earlier.)  Knowing which passages are more authoritative makes it relatively easy to reject false interpretations and false teachings.  The first books of the Bible have more authority than those that come later.  You end up with a personal system of beliefs that accepts all of God's Word as authoritative.

So - the First Century Writings (New Testament) has "less authority" than the TANAK (Torah, Prophets, and Writings). 

 

I would give the words of Christ the MOST weight. 

[8thdaypriest]

Ron,

Do you believe that the death of Yeshua changed anything? 

[8thdaypriest]

What "former commandment" was  "set aside", (disannulled,  abrogated) because of its weakness and inefficacy? 

 

Didn't  the author of Hebrews just say that the "blood of bulls and goats" was weak, and could not take away sin?

 

I would say that the "blood of bulls and goats" and the whole system that supported it, was "set aside" (disannulled, abrogated).

 

 

Hebrews 7:18 Thus, on the one hand, the earlier rule is set aside because of its weakness and inefficacy (CJB)

    Hebrews 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. (KJV)

    Hebrews 7:18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (NIV)

    Hebrews 7:18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, (NKJ)

    Hebrews 7:18 There is, on the one hand, the abrogation of an earlier commandment because it was weak and ineffectual (NRS)

 

Did the author of the Book of Hebrews also have the "Spirit of prophecy" ?  If so, then SOMETHING has been annulled by the LORD - some "earlier" or "former" COMMANDMENT. 

 

[8thdaypriest]

Rachel said,

At the end of the 2300 evening-mornings the Sanctuary would be "cleansed". The word "cleansed" is in the perfect tense, meaning the process of cleansing would be completed at the end of the 2300 (not begin a process that would take some 175+ years). Which is WHY the whole 1844 investigative judgment thing does not make any sense to me. Besides - Jesus said, "I know my sheep." He would not need 175+ years to decide. The very day that He receives the dominion/kingdom, He will immediately return for His people.

 

i consider the following sound advice for all of us when arguments get built around the perceived meaning of a particular word:

     

"When we ask, 'what does that verse mean?' we may search for an answer in other verses. But when we ask "what does that word mean?" we may find men challenging our position by referring to sources beyond our ability to evaluate. We are not able to compare the merit of various lexicons and of various authorities in the field of Biblical languages. Neither can we take the word of the man speaking to us. Nor can we discount it. So Paul said "don't let Bible discussions degenerate to this level. Keep them on the level of comparing scripture with scripture or your hearers will suffer."  Eugene Prewitt Adventist lecturer.

 

2 Tim 2:14 Of these things put [them] in remembrance, charging [them] before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, [but] to the subverting of the hearers.   2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 

 

By comparing scripture with scripture we see that in Rev 14:7 the 1st angel declares that the judgment has begun, which is the cleaning of the sanctuary; and the end of the 2300 day for a year prophecy.. But notice that many events follow its commencement of the judgment. There are yet two more angels coming with their messages,  warning the people to get out of the fallen churches (Babylon) , keep the commandments of God, and not receive the mark of the beast.

 

Still later before the Lord's return,the seven last plagues are  to fall, so , though no specific time is given between the commencement of the judgment (cleansing of the sanctuary) and the return of the Lord, it is not a short time as Rachel suggests.

 

Rachel said

Daniel would have understood this "cleansed" (Dan 8:14) as the Temple being reconsecrated with the ashes of the red heifer. A process which took 7 days.

 

Where does a reconstructed temple fit in with the events described as taking place in the last 7 day period (70th week) of the 70 week prophecy? And what date are you assigning to this event? If you think you have a better explanation of the 70 week prophecy then lay it out with events and corresponnding dates as the Adventists have done. Speculating about possible prophetic scenarios without biblical evidence or specific dates is meaningless.

Rachel said

He could possibly have understood "cleansed" as the Day of Atonement cleansing, but that's not certain.

There was NO TEMPLE. It had been destroyed, when Daniel received these visions.

 

What Daniel might have thought thought or didn't think is not known and should not influence our using scripture with scripture to understand the 2300 day prophecy. We know from the earthly Day of Atonement what cleansing the sanctuary means, and we  also know that our High Priest  is ministering in the Heavenlly Sanctuary,and soon, none no how soon, the judgment will end.

 

In summary, comparing scripture with scripture and not what some think individual words mean, it is clear in the book of Revelation that from the commencement of the judgment (Rev  14:7) until Jesus's return there is an indeterminent period of time in which the world is to be warned by the second and third angels' message ,a period of persecution of the saints, and then the 7 last plagues

Jackson,

I was giving my opinion only - concerning just what Daniel might have understood from the words of the angel.

 

According to Dan 10:14, "I have come to make you understand what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the vision refers to many days yet to come." 

 

Daniel was told to "seal the book" - the whole book - "until the time of the end"  (12:4).

 

I know that Adventists teach that the "latter days" began in 1844, but that's not certain to me.

 

I know some folks who have beat their heads for 50+ years, trying to understand just what "the daily" represents. 

But I don't believe that we WILL understand this prophecy UNTIL "the time of the end",

which is WHY I have NOT put up any commentary concerning Daniel 9, on my website. 

 

Until the Book is opened, it's all just theorizing. 

 

Respectfully,

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint

[phkrause]

Colosians 2:14 says, "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;"  (KJV)

 

The word translated as "ordinances" in this verse is the Greek word "dogmasin" a form of the word "dogma".  If Paul was wanting to refer to any of God's Old Testament instructions, he used the wrong word.  In the Greek translation of the Old Testament that was in use in Paul's day (the Septuagint), the word "dogmasin" (or any form of "dogma") is never used to refer to any law or statute or ordinance made by God.  "Dogmasin" and "dogma" are used only to refer to man-made decrees and laws, usually the decrees of pagan rulers.  If Paul wanted to say thai

Ron I would disagree with you on the Jewish leaders using the Septuagint as a reference, etc. The leaders used the Hebrew Torah and Tanach. Was the Septuagint even available at that time??

[phkrause]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

 

Ron, I guess according to this it was available and being used, but I have a hard time believing that they did.

[8thdaypriest]

Jackson,

You seem to want to argue and argue about Daniel 9:24-27.  I don't.

I'm looking for support for the end of the system of animal sacrifice.

 

You gave Daniel 9:24-27 which will not even be "opened" until the "time of the end",

and Colossians 2:14-16, which is NOT talking about the "ceremonial law". 

 

Not much help with my search. 

[LifeHiscost]

Jackson,

You seem to want to argue and argue about Daniel 9:24-27.  I don't.

I'm looking for support for the end of the system of animal sacrifice.

 

You gave Daniel 9:24-27 which will not even be "opened" until the "time of the end",

and Colossians 2:14-16, which is NOT talking about the "ceremonial law". 

 

Not much help with my search. 

23That is why the Tabernacle and everything in it, which were copies of things in heaven, had to be purified by the blood of animals. But the real things in heaven had to be purified with far better sacrifices than the blood of animals.

24For Christ did not enter into a holy place made with human hands, which was only a copy of the true one in heaven. He entered into heaven itself to appear now before God on our behalf. 25And he did not enter heaven to offer himself again and again, like the high priest here on earth who enters the Most Holy Place year after year with the blood of an animal. 26If that had been necessary, Christ would have had to die again and again, ever since the world began. But now, once for all time, he has appeared at the end of the age^k to remove sin by his own death as a sacrifice.

27And just as each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment, 28so also Christ died once for all time as a sacrifice to take away the sins of many people. He will come again, not to deal with our sins, but to bring salvation to all who are eagerly waiting for him....Heb 9

 

I suppose then we only need to accept that Jesus' sacrifice was "once for all, He has appeared at the end of the age", was truely at the end of the age. While we might look at Jesus time on this earth, 2,000 years ago not at the end of the age, that doesn't appear as the way it is stated in Hebrews.

 

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron I would disagree with you on the Jewish leaders using the Septuagint as a reference, etc. The leaders used the Hebrew Torah and Tanach. Was the Septuagint even available at that time??

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

 

Ron, I guess according to this it was available and being used, but I have a hard time believing that they did.

 

I agree that the Hebrew-speaking people would have used the Old Testament in Hebrew.  And those Hebrew-speaking Jews would have been part of the group that was described as all being "zealous for the Law", so there's virtually no chance they would have believed anyone who taught that the Law that Jesus said would not pass away, had been annulled by being nailed to the cross.  They would have taken the words of Jesus seriously when he commanded "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law."  And they would have understood "the Law" to be all of the instructions in the Books of Moses, as Jesus and the Jews used the term "the Law".  The Hebrew-speaking believers would not be inclined at all to set aside any of the Word of God. And the historical evidence shows that they hadn't at the time that Colossians was written.

 

But there were also Greek-speaking Jews like those mentioned in Acts 5, who were a minority among the believers.  They would have been using the Septuagint.  Also, the person who wrote (or translated) the book of Colossians in Greek, was probably a Greek-speaking believer who would be familiar with the words that were used in the Greek Old Testament.  Scholars tell us that most of the Old Testament passages that are quoted in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament are quoted from the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Scriptures.  Personally I think that's because the authors and translators would be writing out the Old Testament passages with the wording that their Greek-speaking readers would be familiar with, not because the Septuagint was used by the majority of Jewish believers.

 

In Colossians 2:14 Paul (or a later translator) used a Greek word for "ordinances" that was never used to refer to any of God's laws or instructions in the Greek Old Testament of that day.