The END of Sacrifices?

[8thdaypriest]

On 7/16/2016 at 10:37 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

The ONLY thing that has been "changed" is the priesthood - from Levitical to Melchizedek.  But with that "change" - there no longer remain priests to receive or offer the animal sacrifices. 

You seem to disagree with the book of Hebrews.  A few decades after Jesus ascended to do the work of High Priest in the heavenly Sanctuary, the author of Hebrews said in the present tense, "Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law." (Heb. 8:4)  Apparently the two orders of priesthood were operating concurrently at that time.  Obviously, the law that specified that Jesus couldn't be a priest if he were on earth was still valid when this verse was written, and there were still priests offering gifts on earth according to that still-valid law, while at the same time Jesus was serving as high priest of the heavenly Sanctuary.

At what point in time did Jesus first become "a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek”? (Psalm 110:4 and Hebrews 7:17, 12):  Was it before the Psalmist first wrote Psalm 110?  Or was it "forever" going back in time before the world had any time?  If so, then the Melkizedekian priesthood had functioned concurrently with the Levitical priesthood for a long, long time. 

Nevertheless, if there were any priestly duties associated with preparing himself for sacrifice through the incarnation and life on earth, then the two priesthoods would have been operating concurrently before the veil of the Temple was torn, as Jesus prepared the ultimate sacrifice as a Melchizedekian priest and the Levitical priests continued serving at the Jerusalem temple.

Perhaps you are thinking that the Levitical priesthood has to disappear when the Melchizedekian priesthood starts because "anti-types" supposedly do away with "types".  Where does the Scriptures specify that the "types" always become invalid when the "anti-type" appears?  I think that part of the theory is just man-made speculation.  Certainly lambs still exist even after Jesus became the "Lamb of God".  And marriages still exist even after God became betrothed to Israel.  So the Levitical priesthood probably still exists and can function legitimately if/when the Temple were to be restored in Jerusalem.

God made a covenant with the descendants of Aaron to serve as Levitical priests.  In Jeremiah 33:19-22 God re-confirms that covenant and declares that it cannot be broken while day and night continue.  (This was after God already knew how unfaithful the Israelites were.)  Since Jesus said "the Scriptures cannot be broken" (John 10:35), I'm confident that the Levitical priesthood still exists, just as the throne of David still exists and will be given to Jesus. (Luke 1:32)

[8thdaypriest]

Ron, Of course - I don't believe that God started a "new" Melchizedek priesthood AFTER Jesus died.  The Melchizedek priesthood existed - at the very least - from the gate of Eden. 

I believe the Aaronic priesthood was a Plan B - NOT the LORD's original plan.   

The LORD's original intention was for ALL of Israel to become "a kingdom of priests".  Because of rebellion and idolatry - eleven of the tribes were excluded from priesthood, which left only the tribe of Levi, and specifically the descendants of Aaron.  To this day, I don't understand WHY the LORD made Aaron High Priest of Israel, when he actually directed the construction of the Calf Idol.  (I realize he was pressured and feared for his life.)  It's like his action had no consequence.  Even his two older sons were corrupt.  I know the LORD forgave him because Moses prayed for him - still. 

I believe the LORD's original plan will become reality after the Second Coming, when ALL of Israel redeemed (including all grafted in Gentile believers) will become "priests of God and of Christ" (Rev. 20:6).  I do NOT BELIEVE that priesthood will minister only in Heaven, and not on this earth. 

I believe the "sons of Zadok" who will minister as priests in the Kingdom Temple, will INCLUDE all of redeemed Israel from this age.  The "Sons of Zadok" were faithful to King David, and the priesthood of Messiah's kingdom will include those who were faithful to Jesus - the Son of David. 

Plan B was rendered "obsolete" and was "passing away" when the Letter to the Hebrews was written.  Do I really have to stick with something that is "obsolete". 

[Aliensanctuary]

We might expect that animal "sacrifices" will continue in the Kingdom of YHVH, not for transgressions, but as a food source for priests and other Temple workers. As the Temples in the days of Solomon and Christ were but symbolic representations of the real Temple, so too were the animal sacrifices symbolic representations of a food source for certain members of the future Kingdom.

[phkrause]

4 hours ago, Aliensanctuary said:

We might expect that animal "sacrifices" will continue in the Kingdom of YHVH, not for transgressions, but as a food source for priests and other Temple workers. As the Temples in the days of Solomon and Christ were but symbolic representations of the real Temple, so too were the animal sacrifices symbolic representations of a food source for certain members of the future Kingdom.

I don't buy that! Why would killing go on????? For what purpose????? I believe it says there will be no more death, etc. Do you actually believe that God will allow hunting?

[JoeMo]

3 hours ago, phkrause said:

I don't buy that! Why would killing go on????? For what purpose????? I believe it says there will be no more death, etc. Do you actually believe that God will allow hunting?

Allowing hunting is debatable; but it appears that He will allow fishing.

" As I went back, I saw on the bank of the river very many trees on the one side and on the other. ⁸ And he said to me, “This water flows toward the eastern region and goes down into the Arabah, and enters the sea;^[b] when the water flows into the sea, the water will become fresh.^{[c] 9} And wherever the river goes,^[d] every living creature that swarms will live, and there will be very many fish. For this water goes there, that the waters of the sea^[e] may become fresh; so everything will live where the river goes. ¹⁰ Fishermen will stand beside the sea. From Engedi to Eneglaim it will be a place for the spreading of nets. Its fish will be of very many kinds, like the fish of the Great Sea. (Ezek. 47:7-10)

Some may say this refers to disciples being "fishers of men"; but this is in the Kingdom!  We won't be fishing for men any more because all who are in the Kingdom are already saved.  So we're fishing for fish.

[8thdaypriest]

5 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Allowing hunting is debatable; but it appears that He will allow fishing.

" As I went back, I saw on the bank of the river very many trees on the one side and on the other. ⁸ And he said to me, “This water flows toward the eastern region and goes down into the Arabah, and enters the sea;^[b] when the water flows into the sea, the water will become fresh.^{[c] 9} And wherever the river goes,^[d] every living creature that swarms will live, and there will be very many fish. For this water goes there, that the waters of the sea^[e] may become fresh; so everything will live where the river goes. ¹⁰ Fishermen will stand beside the sea. From Engedi to Eneglaim it will be a place for the spreading of nets. Its fish will be of very many kinds, like the fish of the Great Sea. (Ezek. 47:7-10)

Some may say this refers to disciples being "fishers of men"; but this is in the Kingdom!  We won't be fishing for men any more because all who are in the Kingdom are already saved.  So we're fishing for fish.

If this is the 8th millennium, then there will be millions of human beings raised as "the rest of the dead" who are NOT YET SAVED.  They died in ignorance or as children.  They MUST CHOOSE.

It makes perfect sense to me that the river flowing from the Temple that Ezekiel saw, represents the Spirit.  Where ever this river flows - the dead land comes back to life. 

Water symbolizes the Spirit.  The River of Life flows from the throne of God and the Lamb (Rev. 22:1). 

The Spirit is poured out as "the latter rain".  We are baptized in water - and receive the spirit.  We are sprinkled with water containing the ashes of the Red Heifer - for cleansing. 

Water poured from the smitten rock in the wilderness.  That rock symbolized Jesus.  

[JoeMo]

Hi Rachel,

I think I posted this previously; but I can't justify spiritualizing away Ezekiel's description of the Temple in chapters 40 - 48 and the river flowing out from it.  There are too many things that just don't sound "symbolic" - like the descriptions of the rooms, the names of the seas, the borders of Israel, the division of the land, etc.  Even if it is a description of the8th day, there won't be unsaved people around forever.  There IS coming a time when sin and the unsaved are totally eradicated.  Why do we need to spiritualize away fishing and possibly meat eating?  I understand that the idea is probably disgusting to vegetarians. It must not have been that disgusting to the King of the Jews; since he ate the Passover lamb at least 30 times in His life; and on more than one occasion He helped the disciples greatly increase their catch; and even cooked fish for them after His resurrection.  If it's good enough for the Son of God, it's good enough for me.

[8thdaypriest]

Revelation 21:4 "And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away."

So - I guess you think this verse only applies to humans - not animals. 

Have you ever WATCHED an animal bleed out, and die.  I HAVE.  My grandfather owned a meat market and slaughter house.  I went out to the slaughter house with him many, many times as a kid.  The animal's eyes were wide with terror.  They could smell the blood.  They were moaning and jumping - trying to escape, even before they were shot.  If you think those year old lambs just walked calmly up to the killing post, you should think again.  If you separate a lamb from its herd - it gets very scared.  Lots of noise, and the smell of fire and blood . . .  You get my drift. 

[JoeMo]

45 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

So - I guess you think this verse only applies to humans - not animals. 

I wouldn't stake my eternal destiny on it; but I think it only applies to murder - including murder of animals solely for sport.  For a sacrifice or eating, I think killing animals may still be acceptable.  That being said, It's OK if I'm wrong.

47 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Have you ever WATCHED an animal bleed out, and die.  I HAVE. 

So have I; but I was much younger and not yet an SDA.  I have gutted deer, helped butcher steers, and cleaned fish.  My neighbor across the street used to kill and butcher a few goats every year for a Christmas feast.  My boys could hardly wait every year to help.  It's a nasty, filthy job; but it sure was good eating!  I have to admit I would find it distasteful to kill and butcher a mammal again; and I only rarely eat mammal meat any more.

Fishing is another story.  Just a few weeks ago we caught, cleaned and ate over 25 lbs. of yellow fin tuna over the course of 10 days (there were 6 of us).  It was absolutely delicious - raw (sushi or sashimi) and cooked (steaks and burgers). My wife and I frequently put smoked salmon in our salad for dinner at night.

It seems like Jesus still condoned killing and eating fish even after His resurrection. He even ate the fish.  See John 21:9-14.

The smell of burgers or steak on a grill is still very pleasant to me.

I can understand how distasteful this would be for a lifelong vegetarian.

[Aliensanctuary]

Quote

Is 25:6

In Jerusalem, the Lord of Heaven’s Armies will spread a wonderful feast for all the people of the world. It will be a delicious banquet with clear, well-aged wine and choice meat.

I believe that this scripture refers to the Marriage Feast of the Lamb and New Jerusalem. 

[Aliensanctuary]

Recall from the scriptures that the LORD liked the smell of meat being barbecued on the altar of sacrifice. 

Quote

Genesis 8:21

And the Lord was pleased with the aroma of the sacrifice...

The real Temple where the LORD dwells is probably located at the apex of Zion, another moon-sized mountainous city from the stars. We should not be too shocked if meat is served to the priests and other Temple workers. Inside Zion, crops and animals are raised to feed the Temple workers and the rest of those dwelling in the city.

[Raphael]

Well there sure are lots of things in heaven not clearly understand and to be more specific not allowed to be revealed hehe.. But one thing clear is that it carries the title of "heaven" meaning ultimate in perfection and bliss.. There's a part that's been said by Christ that there will be no more sex in heaven due to the revealed fact that the delights and satisfactions of sex will be ultimately inferior to that of heaven whether in terms of intensity, duration, or ecstasy.. Imagine that..

[Ron Amnsn]

On 7/17/2016 at 9:20 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

I believe the Aaronic priesthood was a Plan B - NOT the LORD's original plan.   

The LORD's original intention was for ALL of Israel to become "a kingdom of priests".  Because of rebellion and idolatry - eleven of the tribes were excluded from priesthood, which left only the tribe of Levi, and specifically the descendants of Aaron.

Yes. From Numbers chapter 3 it appears that the first-born of Israel were intended to be the priests before the incident of the golden calf.

I'm not convinced that God intended every individual in Israel to be a priest.  In Exodus 19:5-6, when God is offering to make a covenant with Israel at Mt. Sinai he says, "Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation."

This was spoken before the golden calf incident when "Plan A" was still the plan for the first-born priests.  God is speaking of Israel's role among all nations - to be a holy nation and to be the kingdom in which the priesthood would function.

The Hebrew word translated as "kingdom of" is mamleket.  You seem to be interpreting that as "kingdom comprised of", which would work if it had been written in English.  But in the Hebrew scriptures, that form of the word has the meaning of "kingdom belonging to" or "kingdom ruled over by", as in the "kingdom of Og".  That would make the holy nation of Israel a kingdom that is ruled over by priests, which would have been quite literally true when the first-born heads of every family, clan, and tribe were priests.

Even in English, the phrase "a kingdom of priests" does not require that every citizen in the kingdom function as a priest.  When we say, "a nation of seafarers" it means a nation with a prominent segment of the population that sails the seas, but we don't think that every person in that nation lives on a ship.   And when we say "a city of artisans", we don't mean that every citizen of that city is an artisan, but rather that there are a significant number of artisans among a population that includes non-artisans.  So in English "a kingdom of priests" could mean a nation (among all the nations of the earth) that contains the priesthood; somewhat like the tribe of Levi (among all the other tribes) contained the priesthood after the golden calf incident.  I doesn't necessarily mean that every individual would serve in the temple as a priest.

Of course, your interpretation could maybe still be possibly correct somehow, but it is not the plain meaning of the text.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 7/17/2016 at 9:20 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

Plan B was rendered "obsolete" and was "passing away" when the Letter to the Hebrews was written.  Do I really have to stick with something that is "obsolete". 

It seems that someone who is desiring to become a priest of God would have a larger than normal amount of respect for the priesthood that God has previously appointed.  I don't detect that in your posts, Rachel.  As I have pointed out before, the translators have changed the tense of the verse you refer to (Hebrews 8:13) to make it sound as if the Levitical priesthood was obsolete when Hebrews was written, even though the verse does not say that.  Your eagerness to have the Levitical priesthood be obsolete comes across as disrespectful to the priesthood God set up previously.  I don't see why God would choose people to replace the Levitical priesthood, who do not value the previous priesthood made holy by God.

And yes, you do have to stick with something that is "obsolete".  You are living on planet earth.  Hebrews 1:10-11 uses the same word that you say means "obsolete" to describe the foundations of the earth, and the heavens.

[Dave Watchman]

On 7/17/2016 at 0:20 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

I believe the Aaronic priesthood was a Plan B - NOT the LORD's original plan.   

 

I think there's only 2 plans, the original and plan B. Or they can be called the primary and secondary plan but there's no plan C. There's not a 3rd plan, is there? And I don't think animal sacrifices will be a part of the final plan.

 

The original plan was for Jesus to come one time only. The idea was for the Jews to accept their Messiah and Jesus would not have returned to Heaven. There would have been no second coming as it would not have been required.

 

But not everything in the OT eschatology had a guarantee that it would get done no matter what. The Ezekiel temple is an example of something that IS fulfilled by not being built.
 

"They have defiled my holy name by their abominations that they have committed, so I have consumed them in my anger. Now let them put away their whoring and the dead bodies of their kings far from me, [and I will dwell in their midst forever].

What if they didn't put away their whoring or the dead bodies of their kings. Would He still dwell in their midst forever? Even after they crucified Him? How was He supposed to build Ezekiel's temple if they sent Him back to Heaven?
 

“As for you, son of man, describe to the house of Israel the temple, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and they shall measure the plan. And if they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the temple, its arrangement, its exits and its entrances, that is, its whole design; and make known to them as well all its statutes and its whole design and all its laws, and write it down in their sight, so that they may observe all its laws and all its statutes and carry them out.

What if they weren't ashamed of their iniquities and what they did. Would they still get the temple plan no matter what? Can you hear a stipulation or an ultimatum in the Script?

The 1st century Jews were given 70 weeks to, among other things, seal both the vision and the prophet. During the Babylonian exile God had three prophets in operation at the same time: Daniel, Ezekiel and Jeremiah. But these three prophets were being given two different end time schematics. Though technically Daniel is an OT book, it really is a sealed relative to Revelation's story and doesn't mix well with the OT end time scenario. With the exception of Daniel, is there any OT mention of a second coming?

The original plan was for the Jews to accept their Messiah, then Jesus would have began the Kingdom of God on earth right away because it really was "at hand" at that time. John the Baptist would not have died the way that he did, "lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction". Jesus would have sent disciples out from Jerusalem, a nation of priests, to invite anyone who wanted to be saved to come and live there in the 1st century. Jerusalem would have eventually grown to such a huge population that it's walls could no longer contain it.

Then, after some time, Lucifer in the guise of Gog Magog would attempt to attack the unwalled Holy City but Jesus would destroy him and his army where they stood and we would spend the next seven years burying them and burning their wooden weapons. And the wolf would lay down with the lamb and we could watch an infant stick his hand into a viper's den while we built Ezekiel's Temple.

But now instead, Paul gets knocked off his horse, the NT gets written, Daniel gets unsealed for the final generation, we get an end time Babylon, Antichrist, mark of the beast, two witnesses of 144,000, Jesus makes His second visitation and we have a brand New Jerusalem with an end time variation on Gog Magog.

Does this describe how the crucifixion occurred?:

Him Whom They Have Pierced
 

“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn. On that day the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning for Hadad-rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. The land shall mourn, each family by itself: the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by itself, and their wives by themselves; and all the families that are left, each by itself, and their wives by themselves.

Or is this describing the original method of how Jesus would have been sacrificed if humanity had not turned Him over to the enemy?

It's looking to me like everything that has taken place in the world since 1535 has been so that Israel would become a nation again in 1948. The Ottoman empire, WW1, WW2, 1948 and all the trees. But the one and the only reason for all this to happen was so that Israel could recapture Jerusalem and then in 1969 create a reason for the Knesset to make an official decree to "restore and build Jerusalem".
 

"Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks.

This was written 2600 years ago and at that time there may not have been a second coming required. The Jews might have cooperated and accepted their Messiah in the first century. Jesus would have come one time only and never ascended back to heaven, making a second coming unnecessary. Daniel 9 had to be written in such a way that was more than artful, more than genius. The 70 weeks were articulated in a manner that would include both the primary visitation of Jesus AND the possibility of a secondary visitation in a compact and simultaneous fashion.

 

"Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes,
[there will be seven 'sevens,'] and [sixty-two 'sevens.']

 

Primary Visitation [and] Secondary Visitation

 

The reason why the weeks are split up is due to the fact that they want us to "Know and understand this". If the "second coming" would be required it would take place "seven 'sevens,' from an official command to restore and build Jerusalem. There had to be an Israel for this to take place but notice that it's not from the time that Jerusalem is captured, it's from the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.

A most holy place did not get anointed, but the vision and prophet have definitely been sealed. We're in the middle of the Daniel/Revelation deal right now which is the secondary plan. At the end of the tribulation Jesus is going to destroy those who destroy the Earth and every mountain and island will be removed from its place. There's no place here for the infant to play near the cobra's den, or for us to burn wooden weapons for seven years. 

 

A thousand years after that's over the wicked will march up over the broad plain of the earth and we'll have the secondary or plan B version of Gog/Magog. Which I think will be much faster that the first one would have been.

 

Happy Sabbath.

[8thdaypriest]

4 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

It seems that someone who is desiring to become a priest of God would have a larger than normal amount of respect for the priesthood that God has previously appointed.  I don't detect that in your posts, Rachel.  As I have pointed out before, the translators have changed the tense of the verse you refer to (Hebrews 8:13) to make it sound as if the Levitical priesthood was obsolete when Hebrews was written, even though the verse does not say that.  Your eagerness to have the Levitical priesthood be obsolete comes across as disrespectful to the priesthood God set up previously.  I don't see why God would choose people to replace the Levitical priesthood, who do not value the previous priesthood made holy by God.

And yes, you do have to stick with something that is "obsolete".  You are living on planet earth.  Hebrews 1:10-11 uses the same word that you say means "obsolete" to describe the foundations of the earth, and the heavens.

You make some good points Ron.  I'm sorry you think I am being disrespectful to the institution of the priesthood.  That was certainly NOT my heart feeling about God's wonderful prophecy and system of government.  I believe the priesthood will STILL be the system of government in the earth made new, so why would I "disrespect" that system.  I just believe those priests will be of the Melchizedek order - not solely of the Aaronic order. 

The Levite priests were men - some righteous and some terribly evil.  Even the descendants of the man Zadok.  Some were righteous, and some not so much. 

Revelation 20:4-6  "Then I saw thrones, and those seated on them were given authority to judge. I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.  (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. Over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him a thousand years." (NRS)

I've looked up every word in the Greek, and looked at the tense, etc.  Here it really appears that EVERY PERSON who is made immortal at the Second Coming, will become a priest. 

The 24 elders are becoming priests, because the tense is aorist in 1:6.  "has made us (is making us) kings and priests to His God and Father". 

In 5:9-10 the twenty-four elders sing:

"You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals; For You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and have made us kings and priests to our God; and we shall reign on the earth." 

Once again, "have made" is in the aorist tense, which means the better translation would be "are making".  I don't know if the 24 elders are all of the Levite linage, but I have long thought that there are far more than just 24 of them.  King David divided the priesthood into 24 courses, which rotated the priestly duties.   I believe the "holy ones" who were resurrected just after Jesus was resurrected, ascended with Him to Heaven, and became the 24 (courses) of elders before the throne of God. 

I suppose you could argue that men of Aaronic descent somehow have migrated or been carried into EVERY tribe, tongue and people and nation on earth.  I think that's doubtful.  I think it much more likely that EVERY redeemed person will become a "priest" of God and of Christ - of the Melchizedek order. 

Which then begs the question: What need for a priesthood, in the earth made new?  My personal belief is that "the rest of the dead" will need to be taught the ways of the LORD, after they are resurrected at the end of 1000 years. 

I'm sorry this post is getting long.  Just let me ad one more verse.  Isaiah 61:3-9.  The "Priests of the LORD" in this passage receive a "double portion" and "in their land they shall possess double".  This is the inheritance of the "firstborn", but a "double portion" of the land is NOT something that was promised to Levite priests.  They inherited no portion of the land.  The tithe was their portion.  Just another reason why I believe these will be Melchizedek priests - not Levite/Aaronic. 

 

 

[Ron Amnsn]

12 hours ago, jackson said:

The Gospel of John written well after Jesus' death refers to the feast days as "feasts of the Jews"

The word translated as "Jews" in these verses is ioudaion, which in some usages does refer to Jews (as opposed to Gentiles).  But in some of these verses it should probably be translated into English using the literal meaning of "Judeans" -- those living in Judea. 

There were some differences of opinion regarding religious practices between the Judeans and the Galileans, and between the Judeans and the Samaritans.  Many of the followers of Jesus were Galileans, and many of those who were plotting to kill Jesus were Judeans.  Notice what John says about the Judeans and the Galileans:
   So when he came to Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him, having seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the feast. For they too had gone to the feast. (John 4:45)
   After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He would not go about in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill him. (John 7:1)

John specifically tells us that Jesus was avoiding Judea because the Judeans were wanting to kill Jesus.  The author is making a distinction that we normally do not make.  We generally lump together all the Israelites as "Jews".  But the Galilee was full of Israelites (that we would call "Jews") who were not seeking to kill Jesus.  It was the Judeans who were seeking to kill Jesus, so Jesus stayed away from Judea at that time.

You seem to be wanting to use the term ioudaion to differentiate between Jews and Christians.  This is not a usage that we find in the Bible because throughout the whole time the Bible was being written the followers of Jesus were considered to be a sect within Judaism. (Acts 24:5,14)  The believers were using the Jewish Scriptures, were going up to the Temple in Jerusalem to worship and offer sacrifices, and were following the Jewish Messiah.  Today we (and the Jews) generally consider Christians and Jews to be distinct and separate groups, but it is anachronistic to try to read our current views into what John wrote when such views did not exist.

Why would John make a distinction about the "feasts of the Judeans" ?   The story in John 4 happened in Samaria, where the Samaritans kept their own version of the Old Testament feasts on the Mt. of Blessing.  So John could have been making it clear that he wasn't talking about those feasts.  Or perhaps he was acknowledging the different calendars that were used by the different sects within Judaism at that time.  The sects that did not recognize the Judean leadership as legitimate leaders of the Jews would at times start their year a month later or earlier than the Judeans did, and would sometimes start their months a day or two later or earlier than the Judean leadership did.  The Karaite Jews today usually celebrate the Old Testament feasts on different days than rabbinical Jews.  Karaites determine the calendar according to the sightings of the new moons as was done in Bible times, while rabbinical (or Orthodox) Jews use a calendar originally calculated by Hillel.  (BTW, the Millerites apparently used the Karaite calendar to determine that October 22 was the Day of Atonement in 1844.)

John would not need to specify the Sabbath as "the Sabbath of the Judeans" because all the different sects of Jews agreed which day was the weekly Sabbath.

Although Christians today often refer to God's feasts as the "Jewish feasts", in the Scriptures they are called the "appointed feasts of YHWH"  (Leviticus 23) and God calls them "My feasts" (Leviticus 23:2)

[Ron Amnsn]

12 hours ago, jackson said:

Is it not fair to say that these  ceremonial laws and their accompanying sacrifices were no longer relevant for the Christian.? 

If your religion is based on tradition, then it would probably be "fair to say" such things.  But if you choose the Word of God as the foundation of your religion, then you wouldn't say such things because the Scriptures do not say such things.

For instance, where does Scripture designate any of God's law as "ceremonial"?

[Ron Amnsn]

On 7/23/2016 at 3:46 PM, Dave Watchman said:

The original plan was for Jesus to come one time only. The idea was for the Jews to accept their Messiah and Jesus would not have returned to Heaven. There would have been no second coming as it would not have been required.

Dave,

Where do you find this "original plan" taught in Scripture?  It seems speculative.

[Robert]

10 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

For instance, where does Scripture designate any of God's law as "ceremonial"?

When you say "law" do you mean the Pentateuch, the moral law or the law of scarifies, feast days, etc (ceremonial laws)?

 

[Ron Amnsn]

2 minutes ago, Robert said:

When you say "law" do you mean the Pentateuch, the moral law or the law of scarifies, feast days, etc (ceremonial laws)?

I mean God's Law of Moses found in the Pentateuch.

[Robert]

11 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

I mean God's Law of Moses found in the Pentateuch.

Lev chapter 23 is found in the Pentateuch.  This chapter is strictly ceremonial.  In the NT Paul touches on this ceremonial law in Col 2:16,17 

[8thdaypriest]

On 7/23/2016 at 5:46 PM, Dave Watchman said:

 

I think there's only 2 plans, the original and plan B. Or they can be called the primary and secondary plan but there's no plan C. There's not a 3rd plan, is there? And I don't think animal sacrifices will be a part of the final plan.

 

The original plan was for Jesus to come one time only. The idea was for the Jews to accept their Messiah and Jesus would not have returned to Heaven. There would have been no second coming as it would not have been required.

If Jesus had NOT fulfilled the condition for inheritance of "the land" - the condition of perfect obedience from birth to death, then every human being who had ever/or would ever live, would have been doomed to eternal death. 

There would have been no salvation without the death of God's perfect sacrificial Lamb. 

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, Ron Amnsn said:

If your religion is based on tradition, then it would probably be "fair to say" such things.  But if you choose the Word of God as the foundation of your religion, then you wouldn't say such things because the Scriptures do not say such things.

For instance, where does Scripture designate any of God's law as "ceremonial"?

We do know that the Tabernacle was a "copy" of "heaven itself".  The high priest REPRESENTED Jesus, and the ceremonies REPRESENTED and PROPHESIED the actions of Christ our Heavenly High Priest. 

We do know that Jesus was "the lamb of God" whose blood cleanses from sin.  The "sin offering" therefore SYMBOLIZED and PROPHESIED Jesus' death. 

Personally, I never call it the "ceremonial law".  I call it the prophetic law.    That law was an acted prophecy. 

Which begs the question:  Once the prophecy is fulfilled - as the Passover was fulfilled when Jesus died - are the commands concerning that prophecy rendered obsolete, and therefore no longer necessary to obey? 

I believe we WILL go up to Jerusalem, to celebrate the Feasts of the LORD, in the earth made new.  The first and last day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, Feast of Trumpets, Day of Atonement, and the first and last day of The Feast of Tabernacles were all called "holy convocations" wherein no work was to be done.  A "sabbath" is a "rest" - meaning REST from work.  Therefore all these Feasts of the LORD were in fact "sabbaths". 

How do we know that the LORD was not referring to all these special Feasts of His, but rather only to the weekly 7th day Sabbath, when He spoke to Isaiah (Isa. 66:22-23)?

Example:  The commands concerning the New Moon were NOT written on stone, but according to Isaiah 66:22-23 "all flesh" will come to worship before the LORD "from one New Moon to another" as well as from one Sabbath to another.  I don't see SDAs celebrating the New Moon. 

Example:  Zechariah 14:8-9 describes a "day" when "living waters shall flow from Jerusalem" and "the LORD shall be King over all the earth."  In that day Zechariah 14:16-19 describes how "everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles."  "If the family of Egypt [a reference to the mixed multitude] will not come up and enter in, they shall receive no rain [symbolic of the spirit]. 

Example:  Jesus spoke of eating of the Passover once again, "in the kingdom of God". ( Luke 22:14-19)  " When the hour came, he took his place at the table, and the apostles with him. 15 He said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I tell you, I will not eat it [the Passover] until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." 17 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, "Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." 19 Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." (NRS)

It seems that Jesus WILL eat the Passover again WHEN "it is fulfilled in the kingdom".  And He WILL drink of the Passover wine again WHEN "the kingdom of God comes".  So did Jesus do away with the Feast of Unleavened Bread, or did He change the symbol used to represent Himself - from a dead lamb to broken unleavened bread?  I personally believe the latter.   

[8thdaypriest]

On 7/23/2016 at 1:31 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

Yes. From Numbers chapter 3 it appears that the first-born of Israel were intended to be the priests before the incident of the golden calf.

I'm not convinced that God intended every individual in Israel to be a priest.  In Exodus 19:5-6, when God is offering to make a covenant with Israel at Mt. Sinai he says, "Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation."

This was spoken before the golden calf incident when "Plan A" was still the plan for the first-born priests.  God is speaking of Israel's role among all nations - to be a holy nation and to be the kingdom in which the priesthood would function.

The Hebrew word translated as "kingdom of" is mamleket.  You seem to be interpreting that as "kingdom comprised of", which would work if it had been written in English.  But in the Hebrew scriptures, that form of the word has the meaning of "kingdom belonging to" or "kingdom ruled over by", as in the "kingdom of Og".  That would make the holy nation of Israel a kingdom that is ruled over by priests, which would have been quite literally true when the first-born heads of every family, clan, and tribe were priests.

Even in English, the phrase "a kingdom of priests" does not require that every citizen in the kingdom function as a priest.  When we say, "a nation of seafarers" it means a nation with a prominent segment of the population that sails the seas, but we don't think that every person in that nation lives on a ship.   And when we say "a city of artisans", we don't mean that every citizen of that city is an artisan, but rather that there are a significant number of artisans among a population that includes non-artisans.  So in English "a kingdom of priests" could mean a nation (among all the nations of the earth) that contains the priesthood; somewhat like the tribe of Levi (among all the other tribes) contained the priesthood after the golden calf incident.  I doesn't necessarily mean that every individual would serve in the temple as a priest.

Of course, your interpretation could maybe still be possibly correct somehow, but it is not the plain meaning of the text.

ISRAEL - the whole of Israel - was call "My firstborn" by the LORD Himself.  Exodus 4:22 "Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son.'" (NIV)

Just another reason why I believe that ALL of Israel redeemed (every individual) will become "priests of God and of Christ".  They will reign with Him a thousand years, over "the nations".  The "nations" will be those resurrected as "the rest of the dead".   

Revelation 2:26-27  "And he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations -- 'He shall rule them with a rod of iron;'"

If "the nations" are simply resurrected to be executed, then WHEN will we "rule them"?  For me, the "priests of God and of Christ" and ruling over "the nations", only FIT in a scenario wherein "the rest of the dead" are NOT all of the lost, but rather are those who died in ignorance, and are still saveable. 

Those confirmed in rebellion are executed at the Second Coming.  They will not rise again.  There would be no point in resurrecting them AGAIN, just to execute them AGAIN.  It would serve no purpose. 

Rachel Cory, prophecyviewpoint.com