Will we be vegetarians in the millennial reign of Christ?

[evangelist6589]

This is a interesting question, but I think according to the teachings in Ezekiel (cant remember the chapter) & the great supper of the lamb mentioned in Revelation we will not be vegetarians, however some Christians disagree. I have met some christians that believe that a kosher diet is healthier for you. I do not agree. Having been on Weight Watchers for 2 years I have discovered this myth to be false. There are certain types of meats that I avoid, but eating chicken & fish on a regular basis is very healthy for you. Weight Watchers has no religious agenda to meet, so they will state the facts based on scientific research & as a result I have lost more than 50 pounds. What do you say?


John

 

[preachinjesus]

Yes, they will be.

 

[freeatlast]

There is no passage that even hints that man will be vegetarians. Animals yes, man no.

 

[OldRegular]

There are some people who are vegetarians, some who are called vegans {I believe these eat only organic foods!}, and some who eat both meat and vegetables. I eat both meat, I prefer fish and fowl, and vegetables. So no we are not all vegetarians in the millennium.

You do know of course that we are now in the millennial reign of Jesus Christ. When Jesus Christ returns and all the elect are with Him in the New Heavens and New Earth "I Can Only Imagine"!:jesus::applause::godisgood::love2:

 

[Darrell C]

Yes, they will be.

lol..excellent point.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

This is a interesting question, but I think according to the teachings in Ezekiel (cant remember the chapter) & the great supper of the lamb mentioned in Revelation we will not be vegetarians, however some Christians disagree. I have met some christians that believe that a kosher diet is healthier for you. I do not agree. Having been on Weight Watchers for 2 years I have discovered this myth to be false. There are certain types of meats that I avoid, but eating chicken & fish on a regular basis is very healthy for you. Weight Watchers has no religious agenda to meet, so they will state the facts based on scientific research & as a result I have lost more than 50 pounds. What do you say?


John

Hello John, nice to meet you. Without getting too deep in the conversation I would just say first, congratulations on the weight loss, and secondly, if we believe that we live in a cursed world and that in the Millennial Kingdom we see a partial restoration of the original creation, in which man was vegetarian, then we have to consider that while it may be optimal for man to be vegetarian (and I don't think anyone could reasonably argue this), I don't think we can be dogmatic as to what those in the Kingdom will eat.

If you believe that the Levitical system will in some manner be in place again, then it would seem reasonable that they would partake of the sacrifices offered. But again, this would be speculation on our parts, I believe. So to be dogmatic either way would be to assume too much, so I think that for me I would just say that while it is possible (and perhaps likely) that those that belong to the Lord in this time will be vegetarians, I think it can safely be said that there will arise those that rebel against God and probably in short order the world system will have it's followers again, and these will in all probability eat meat.

PreachinJesus makes a good point in that for those of us that expect to be glorified (redeemed from this flesh) in that day, we will not be a part of this creation as we are now, and as those that survive the Tribulation to enter the Kingdom will be. I believe that we will not need food of any kind, but that we will be able to partake should we desire, even as the resurrected Lord is seen to partake in His glorified body.

Hope that helps, though our views will be dependant upon a great many factors which, if not in place, changes the conclusions reached.

God bless.

 

[OldRegular]

If you believe that the Levitical system will in some manner be in place again, then it would seem reasonable that they would partake of the sacrifices offered.

This is one of the more nonsensical doctrines of the dispensational error. Even if one believes in an earthly millennial kingdom to say that the levitical system will be re-established makes a mockery of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ.

Protestants condemn the Roman Catholic practice of the mass, the continual sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The re-establishment of the Levitical system is far worse, it is blasphemy!

 

[freeatlast]

This is one of the more nonsensical doctrines of the dispensational error. Even if one believes in an earthly millennial kingdom to say that the levitical system will be re-established makes a mockery of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ.

Protestants condemn the Roman Catholic practice of the mass, the continual sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The re-establishment of the Levitical system is far worse, it is blasphemy!

Here is the problem. According to scripture there will be animal sacrifices during the millennium kingdom http://www.gotquestions.org/millennial-sacrifices.html . That in the past required the priesthood. It would seem logical that the same would be required in the kingdom.

Now for us all being vegetarians there is no suggestion to that.

 

[Darrell C]

This is one of the more nonsensical doctrines of the dispensational error. Even if one believes in an earthly millennial kingdom to say that the levitical system will be re-established makes a mockery of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ.

Protestants condemn the Roman Catholic practice of the mass, the continual sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The re-establishment of the Levitical system is far worse, it is blasphemy!

Hello OR, long time no see. Hope all is well with you and yours.

While it may seem to be "blasphemy" and nonsensical, I simply ask if you partake of Communion where you fellowship?

If you do, you have probably concluded like most that Communion memorializes His death, it is not the actual sacrifice.

Seeing that God must, and I emphasize must, fulfill His promises to Israel or be found to have broken His own Covenant, there is no reason to to see Israel (who is never told that they will lose their identity or become a "different nation") worshipping without symbolic practice of their own concerning the death of Christ.

In other words, there is no salvific value attributed (by me) to sacrifice in the Millennial Kingdom, it is held as symbolic even as Communion for us is.

to say that the levitical system will be re-established makes a mockery of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ.

To believe so would imply that the performance of sacrifice before the Cross...also makes a mockery.

In the Millennial Kingdom, it is quite reasonable to believe that the outward, symbolic (memorial) practice of sacrifice will be a testimony to those that rebel against Christ. It will not be optional to submit to His authority, and Levitical practice will picture submission.

Of course, this is just my view. I can understand how a Millennial Kinigdom is not believed by some, and I don't have a problem with that (though I differ in view).

But, again, to say that to memorialize the death of Christ with sacrifice as performed in the Levitical Economy is blasphemy, then it seems we would also proclaim the "picture" found in the Law as well as Christian practice, Communion...to be blasphemy as well.

The re-establishment of the Levitical system is far worse, it is blasphemy!

Paul practiced the heritage of the Jews in Acts, after conversion. I am sure you are aquainted with this fact, but I will leave you with one example:



Acts 21:26

King James Version (KJV)

26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.


How would we liken this to Christian practice for Gentiles? And while we know that for a time Levitical practice continued, and some might say that in the first century it came to an end, the fact remains that we have a Jew involved in distinctly Jewish practice...right?

Okay, just a few things to comsider, OR. Again, glad to talk to you again.

God bless.

 

[Grasshopper]

Hello OR, long time no see. Hope all is well with you and yours.

While it may seem to be "blasphemy" and nonsensical, I simply ask if you partake of Communion where you fellowship?

If you do, you have probably concluded like most that Communion memorializes His death, it is not the actual sacrifice.

Seeing that God must, and I emphasize must, fulfill His promises to Israel or be found to have broken His own Covenant, there is no reason to to see Israel (who is never told that they will lose their identity or become a "different nation") worshipping without symbolic practice of their own concerning the death of Christ.

In other words, there is no salvific value attributed (by me) to sacrifice in the Millennial Kingdom, it is held as symbolic even as Communion for us is.





To believe so would imply that the performance of sacrifice before the Cross...also makes a mockery.

In the Millennial Kingdom, it is quite reasonable to believe that the outward, symbolic (memorial) practice of sacrifice will be a testimony to those that rebel against Christ. It will not be optional to submit to His authority, and Levitical practice will picture submission.

Of course, this is just my view. I can understand how a Millennial Kinigdom is not believed by some, and I don't have a problem with that (though I differ in view).

But, again, to say that to memorialize the death of Christ with sacrifice as performed in the Levitical Economy is blasphemy, then it seems we would also proclaim the "picture" found in the Law as well as Christian practice, Communion...to be blasphemy as well.




Paul practiced the heritage of the Jews in Acts, after conversion. I am sure you are aquainted with this fact, but I will leave you with one example:



Acts 21:26

King James Version (KJV)

26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.


How would we liken this to Christian practice for Gentiles? And while we know that for a time Levitical practice continued, and some might say that in the first century it came to an end, the fact remains that we have a Jew involved in distinctly Jewish practice...right?

Okay, just a few things to comsider, OR. Again, glad to talk to you again.

God bless.

The problem for Dispies is the very OT passages they claim are describing the MK are the very passages that say offerings and sacrifices are for sin atonement. Nowhere, I repeat nowhere in those passages is their a mention of memorial sacrifices. Numerous times it is quite clear they are for sin atonement. You can't claim 'literal' interpretation then ignore the obvious meaning of the passage.

 

[OldRegular]

Seeing that God must, and I emphasize must, fulfill His promises to Israel or be found to have broken His own Covenant, there is no reason to to see Israel (who is never told that they will lose their identity or become a "different nation") worshipping without symbolic practice of their own concerning the death of Christ.

I am always a little hesitant, well actually I just don't do it, to tell God what He must do or not do. I simply refer you to what Jesus Christ told the Jews prior to His once for all time Sacrificial Death.

Matthew 21:43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

The Levitical system is blood sacrifice. That is not a memorial sacrifice. If you want to read some nonsense about these so-called millennial offerings go here: http://www.thesimpleanswers.com/old/millennium.html

The Book of Hebrews was written in part to show that the Levitical System had been replaced by the Perfect Sacrifice that deals with sin, not the stopgap measure provided by animal sacrifices.

*****************************************************************
Also Roman Catholics will argue that the Mass is not a re-sacrifice of Jesus Christ even though the Canons of Trent say otherwise.

Canons On The Sacrifice Of The Mass

Canon 1. If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, let him be anathema.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT22.HTM#canons

 

[OldRegular]

The problem for Dispies is the very OT passages they claim are describing the MK are the very passages that say offerings and sacrifices are for sin atonement. Nowhere, I repeat nowhere in those passages is their a mention of memorial sacrifices. Numerous times it is quite clear they are for sin atonement. You can't claim 'literal' interpretation then ignore the obvious meaning of the passage.

:thumbs:Occasionally a dispensationalist will "fess up"!:tonofbricks:

 

[kyredneck]

I am always a little hesitant, well actually I just don't do it, to tell God what He must do or not do.....

AMEN! :thumbs:

 

[Darrell C]

The problem for Dispies is the very OT passages they claim are describing the MK are the very passages that say offerings and sacrifices are for sin atonement. Nowhere, I repeat nowhere in those passages is their a mention of memorial sacrifices. Numerous times it is quite clear they are for sin atonement. You can't claim 'literal' interpretation then ignore the obvious meaning of the passage.

Hello Grasshopper, nice to meet you.

Cannot really speak for dispies, however, I can give you a passage to consider: see here.





Exodus 12:13-14

King James Version (KJV)

13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.


Sacrifice for sin never actually removed sin. It did not take away sin before the death of Christ, and it will not take away sin in the Millennial Kingdom.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I am always a little hesitant, well actually I just don't do it, to tell God what He must do or not do. I simply refer you to what Jesus Christ told the Jews prior to His once for all time Sacrificial Death.

Matthew 21:43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

The Levitical system is blood sacrifice. That is not a memorial sacrifice. If you want to read some nonsense about these so-called millennial offerings go here: http://www.thesimpleanswers.com/old/millennium.html

The Book of Hebrews was written in part to show that the Levitical System had been replaced by the Perfect Sacrifice that deals with sin, not the stopgap measure provided by animal sacrifices.

*****************************************************************
Also Roman Catholics will argue that the Mass is not a re-sacrifice of Jesus Christ even though the Canons of Trent say otherwise.

Canons On The Sacrifice Of The Mass

Canon 1. If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, let him be anathema.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT22.HTM#canons

I can understand being hesitant to think of sacrifice occurring again. However, if we look at the fact that the Levitical Economy simply pictured Christ concerning atonement, we have less trouble seeing it in a context of pictorial ritual.

We are in agreement that Christ's sacifice was once for all. It is the only sacrifice that takes away sin.

And I have no idea why it is thought that Catholic doctrine is relevant. I was clear that I view Communion as a memorial of Christ's death. Even so, sacrifice in the Millennial Kingdom will be a memorial. This is simply my view. If a discussion of it is sought, please produce scripture, not the doctrines held by a particular group. Please establish why you do not believe that sacrifice will occur in the Kingdom.

We can start with this:


Matthew 21:43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.


What Kingdom is referred to here?

God bless.

 

[kyredneck]

I can understand being hesitant to think of sacrifice occurring again......

No, I don't think you do:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1786509&postcount=54

We've been here done this before.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No, I don't think you do:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1786509&postcount=54

We've been here done this before.

The exact contrary of what is generally believed is often the truth

 

[Grasshopper]

Hello Grasshopper, nice to meet you.

Cannot really speak for dispies, however, I can give you a passage to consider: see here.





Exodus 12:13-14

King James Version (KJV)

13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.


Sacrifice for sin never actually removed sin. It did not take away sin before the death of Christ, and it will not take away sin in the Millennial Kingdom.

God bless.

Nice to meet you as well. Your post actually makes my point. We would both agree the context of your passage is the Passover. It was the Passover feast that would serve as a memorial to what God had done. Yet when you go to the MK passages their is no such language. Why not use "memorial" if that was the intent, instead over and over it uses " sin offering", "trespass offering", "grain offering" etc.

Eze 45:18*“Thus says the Lord God: In the first month, (Z)on the first day of the month, you shall take a bull from the herd without blemish, and (AA)purify the sanctuary. 19*(AB)The priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering and put it (AC)on the doorposts of the temple, the four corners of the ledge of the altar, and the posts of the gate of the inner court. 20*You shall do the same on the seventh day of the month for anyone who has sinned through error or ignorance; so you shall make atonement for the temple.


This is clearly not a Memorial sacrifice. Don't you think somewhere in the so called MK passages it would tell them it was for a memorial? It was so stated in your Passover passage.

 

[OldRegular]

Nice to meet you as well. Your post actually makes my point. We would both agree the context of your passage is the Passover. It was the Passover feast that would serve as a memorial to what God had done. Yet when you go to the MK passages their is no such language. Why not use "memorial" if that was the intent, instead over and over it uses " sin offering", "trespass offering", "grain offering" etc.

Eze 45:18*“Thus says the Lord God: In the first month, (Z)on the first day of the month, you shall take a bull from the herd without blemish, and (AA)purify the sanctuary. 19*(AB)The priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering and put it (AC)on the doorposts of the temple, the four corners of the ledge of the altar, and the posts of the gate of the inner court. 20*You shall do the same on the seventh day of the month for anyone who has sinned through error or ignorance; so you shall make atonement for the temple.


This is clearly not a Memorial sacrifice. Don't you think somewhere in the so called MK passages it would tell them it was for a memorial? It was so stated in your Passover passage.

Perhaps it is all irrelevant since there will be no earthly millennial kingdom with the temple and Levitical sacrifices. That was all done away with in Jesus Christ. Furthermore, God only has one chosen people, the elect, those redeemed by Jesus Christ.

Revelation 5:9. And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

 

[Darrell C]

Nice to meet you as well. Your post actually makes my point. We would both agree the context of your passage is the Passover. It was the Passover feast that would serve as a memorial to what God had done. Yet when you go to the MK passages their is no such language. Why not use "memorial" if that was the intent, instead over and over it uses " sin offering", "trespass offering", "grain offering" etc.

Eze 45:18*“Thus says the Lord God: In the first month, (Z)on the first day of the month, you shall take a bull from the herd without blemish, and (AA)purify the sanctuary. 19*(AB)The priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering and put it (AC)on the doorposts of the temple, the four corners of the ledge of the altar, and the posts of the gate of the inner court. 20*You shall do the same on the seventh day of the month for anyone who has sinned through error or ignorance; so you shall make atonement for the temple.


This is clearly not a Memorial sacrifice. Don't you think somewhere in the so called MK passages it would tell them it was for a memorial? It was so stated in your Passover passage.

Keeping in mind that understanding was not given to those under the Law at that time, there is no need to think that because something was not spelled out in the passage does not mean that this understanding has not been given at this time.

Can you show where understanding that Christ would die for the sins of man is seen to be understood through the Law, or, for that matter, even in those that the Lord told specifically?

Now, I would just ask that you explain Paul's actions here:


Acts 21:26

King James Version (KJV)

26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.


The passage is very interesting. It shows that while Gentiles are not called to embrace Hebrew custom, it also gives the impression that Jews are not called to divorce themselves from their heritage.

Was Paul in error for his actions here? Would we say that because the Temple had not been destroyed yet, they were still called to perform the Law?

Have only a few minites today, Grasshopper, so, I will be back when I can.

God bless.