Featured Any Dispensationalist in the house?

It can be future because it falls within a Book dealing with the future.

The reason the thought that salvation in Christ equals the end of Israel and is commonly used as an argument against a Millennial Temple centers, I believe, on imposing something into Levitical Service which was never there, mainly...salvation.

The Tabernacle, nor the Temple, is ever once is suggested as being a means of salvation for men. It did not have that value when prescribed by God, and it will never have that value in the Millennial Kingdom.

Those sacrifices pictured the death of Christ, just as Communion pictures the death of Christ, and we do not suggest a blasphemous quality (and not saying anyone did that in this thread, just that is the usual argument against a Millennial Temple) to Communion because we memorialize His death with it.

And in Communion we see something sometimes we forget about...


1 Corinthians 11:24-29

King James Version (KJV)

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.


While it is a memorial those observing it sit under warning. Association with Christ's death in an unworthy manner suggest sin and judgment for that sin.

Now, we know that for the born again believer sin, on an eternal basis...has been atoned for, but, that does not mean that believers do not sin and are called to repent and be cleansed.

In the Millennial Kingdom it will be no different. Believers will sin, and there will be atonement made for that sin. Not on an eternal level, but temporal, just as is the case under Old Testament Economies.

So I see nothing at wrong with the Sacrifice of Christ being memorialized through animal sacrifice (though I am not saying that this will be to the extent it was under Law) after the fact just as it was merely picturing Christ's death before the fact.

Couple that with the fact that we forced, if we reject the Prophecy of Ezekiel's Temple, to also reject the rest of the Prophecy.

Prophecy has never been given with an option for choosing which parts we will embrace and which parts we will not. Prophecy has always been fulfilled to the jot and tittle, never in part, and never having parts become obsolete or made void by new revelation.

The (Covenant of) Law was made obsolete, but the Law was a reality in Israel and served it's intended purpose. So I see no reason not take God's Word at God's Word, and understand that this Prophecy will, like all Prophecy is, fulfilled at some point. And since we cannot see a fulfillment as having occurred as of yet, it is best to view this as Prophecy that will one day be fulfilled.


God bless.

 

Basically what you are doing here is ignoring all of the NT that touches on this topic. Not a word from you on how uncircumcision "in flesh and spirit" could be an abomination.

Your post, sorry to say, is full of doublespeak.

 

Yes, I believe Ezekiel. I also believe Paul. I believe Paul had later revelation.

Nowhere did Ezekiel say the events in his vision were in our future.
However Paul showed that these events could not be future.

Do you believe Paul when he said, among other things, "circumcision avails nothing"?

 

I believe what is getting misconstrued is Christians believe the OT is all about them. God is not done dealing with Israel. The temple will not be for Christians to sacrifice animals.

 

No, what I did was comment on the Prophecy of the Old Testament.

What you have done is dismiss those comments, and create a false argument about issues not in view in my response.

Just because I have not mentioned something doesn't mean (1) I count them irrelevant, (2) that I have ignored anything, or (3) you have the right to charge this.

Not a word from you on the Coming of the Comforter.

See how that works?

My post was not intended to address all relevant issues, just a comment on the Millennial Temple.

?

What are you talking about?

Well, I am used to cop-outs like these, so...understood.




God bless.

 

Have you not read...


Ezekiel 36:22-27

King James Version (KJV)

22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, thus saith the Lord God; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.

23 And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the Lord, saith the Lord God, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.

24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.

25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


...?

Spoken to Israel in her divided state, do you affirm your statement...

...for this prophecy as well?


God bless.

 

Most certainly for that prophecy. In fact, Paul enlarges on this very section of Ezekiel in his epistle to the Corinthians. Don't have time now. I'm off to breakfast and school. When I come back I wil flesh this out.

It is not future. Much of this is very much present, praise God!

 

Actually it is all about Jesus (John 5:39, 46; Luke 24:27), and about the Church. 'For whatever things were written before [ie. in the OT]were written for our learning, that we, through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope' (Rom. 15:4; cf. also 1 Peter 1:10-12).

 

Do you agree with God in the prophet Jeremiah that he would one day do a new covenant with national isreal, for if he ever fully forgot them, the Sun would no longer rise?

 

No - short answer for now - I do not believe God said anything to a future "national Israel". No such thing. Read those passages in Jeremiah mpre carefully, noting especially NT cross-references. What was promised there already happened.

Here is one of, I think, three articles I wrote on the New Covenant in Jeremiah. The application is slightly different, but it also touches upon what you wrote.
https://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=63027

 

Hate to point this out, Tom, but Paul's day was the future at the time of the Prophecy, lol.

So to clarify, please show how the promises made to Israel (and that is clear in the text) was fulfilled in that day.

This prophecy, just as the prophecy concerning the Temple of the Kingdom which follows the same pattern as shown in New Testament Prophecy (Tribulation, Judgment, Kingdom established)...was prophetic.

Israel did not begin building that Temple in that Day, nor do w see that Prophecy spoken of as fulfilled by Christ, Who speaks of the Tribulation and the physical death of unbelievers, just as Revelation also speaks of that same event which includes the Antichrist, the destruction of His enemies, the Supper of the Great God, the Kingdom, and then ultimately the final judgment which yields to the passing away of this current universe and the creation of new heavens and a new earth.

And by the way, if your planning on posting a bunch of first century correlations, I should tell you I have no problem with first century events being considered a partial fulfillment. So if you are going to try to show all prophecy fulfilled, please begin with the Return of Christ and the Kingdom He teaches is established at that time, reiterated in Revelation. I would like to know where every eye saw His Return.


God bless.

 

They were examples, but that doesn't mean we apply them to our relationship with God.

The one glaring reason is that you are not under Law.

They were.

Galatians and Hebrews stand out as drawing this distinction out, making the point that not even Jews could remain under that same economy.

Genesis 3 was written for our learning, but we do not equate God walking with man in the Garden with our current relationship, do we?


God bless.

 

There is no controversy that the promises made to Israel spoke of a future Age in which those promises would be fulfilled.

Denying the Prophecy of Ezekiel doesn't change that.

Here is National Israel in the Tribulation:



Revelation 12

King James Version (KJV)

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.



We don't ascribe a salvific connotation to Israel, but neither do we neglect their presence in the future events yet to unfold.

The Temple is specific to Israel, and it is that Temple in which Daniel, Christ, and Paul refer to.

We know that the Body of Christ is the spiritual Temple, that goes without saying, but we also know that the Antichrist will not stand in the Body of Christ and declare himself God. We know it is not the Church that will persecute Israel which brings about God's preservation for a 3 1/2 year period.

The problem with addressing something you wrote is that we would have to waste time dissembling the arguments you have created.

It is better simply to consult the Scriptures themselves, because you are not likely to have included the arguments of others for which you will be called to address.


God bless.

 

Hello Brother Tom! It makes my heart happy to see you making your solid posts again!

 

Perhaps you would like to explain why the Prophecy of Ezekiel was not prophecy?


God bless.

 

1. "God bless" and "Lol" do not belong in the same post. Decide which way you want to go.
2. Not a word about circumcision. Respond to that and I will answer the rest.

After breakfast...

 

Don't be silly, there is no reason why I cannot have a laugh at your expense, and still pray God's blessings on you, lol

Lighten up Tom.

I usually go the route my antagonist best understands.

Though I am not capable of dodging and deflection, so it still remains to be seen how this conversation will go.

I gave my response to your statement, but if this...

...needs a more direct treatment that you feel is not covered in my response, okay.

It would be a matter of heritage even as it was under the Law. Circumcision of the flesh is not something prohibited to believers...unless it is given a salvific value.

And that was the problem with those under Law...they viewed the external a a means of righteousness.

As I said, in the Millennial Kingdom, there is no reason for Jews to forsake their Heritage.

Physical circumcision was not a means of righteousness...it was a sign. And performed on a child before that child had any clue about anything.

In the same manner animal sacrifice has never had salvific value. Not under Law, not in the Millennial Kingdom.

So your argument is based on the false premise that those sacrifices would be for the purpose of remission of sins on a par with the remission of sins Christ obtained for us through His Sacrifice.

Do you also think that People who observe Communion are contrary to the New Covenant? People who celebrate Passover?

Do you understand that the Church was still offering sacrifices in their ceremonies in the First Century?



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.


Interestingly enough, Paul is charged with...bringing a Gentile into the Temple.

Okay. Your turn.

Enjoy your breakfast. Time for me to have dinner.

But I still think you need to lighten up, lol.


God bless.

 

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world—on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
The historical fact is that Jesus fulfilled none of these messianic prophecies.

by Rabbi Shraga Simmons http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jewsandjesus/​

 

The fact remains that in Ezekiel - your supposed future scenario - we have God calling those who are not circumcised - Gentiles and Jews - an "abomination".

In this passage God calls uncircumcision (including physical uncircumcision) an abomination.

In the NT Paul calls circumcision an abomination (though he does not use the exact word). Just looking at Galatians, one book of many:

"Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.
I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law." - Gal. 5:2-3

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love." - Gal. 5:6

"But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed." - Gal. 5:11

"For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation." - Gal. 6:15

You need to let these verses sink in. For God to turn all these inspired instructions form Paul to his readers, Jews and Gentiles, would be tantamount to Him going back on His word - and His Word.

Once again, the presence of the word "abomination" strongly invokes a salvific context.

False premise? No. Just going by what the Bible clearly states.

Apple Computers and oranges. Nowhere are observers or non-observers of Communion called "abomination".

Yes. This was the transition period, made possible - among other things - by the fact that there was still an intact temple and functioning Levitical priesthood. Once the temple was destroyed this transition period was over.

 

Exactly:

2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision:
3 for we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh: Phil 3

...dogs, evil workers, the concision; an abomination.