Blood Sacrifices in the MK?

[canadyjd]

Let's examine it -- the "law is our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ," right? So suppose the law was re-implemented with blood sacrifices. It would still serve that purpose, wouldn't it? People would still realize that those sacrifices were to no avail unless there was faith in Christ. The world would be "without excuse" having neither offered the sacrifices nor believed (such as wouldn't).

Let's examine it further.

You are flat wrong to say the sacrifices "were to no avail unless there was faith in Christ". Instead, scripture tells us "the sacrifices were of no avail".

The Law of the sin offering only made atonement for sins committed unintentionally. (Lev. 4:1-2) There was no provision made for intentional sins. Those sins were always forgiven by the Grace of God.

Faith in Christ removes all need for sacrifices, since His sacrifice makes the atonement for all sins.

The idea our Lord will re-institute the sacrificial system, making His own sacrifice null and void, cannot be supported by reading scripture in context.

peace to youraying:

 

[skypair]

It is those who would sell their soul for "lust".

Can you be a little more specific? Harlots and fornication are associated with false religion throughout scripture. How do you apply this to your theory?

skypair

 

[skypair]

Let's examine it further.

You are flat wrong to say the sacrifices "were to no avail unless there was faith in Christ". Instead, scripture tells us "the sacrifices were of no avail".

What's the diff?? Faith in God/faith in Christ -- sacrifices were still of no avail. What exactly are you saying?

The idea our Lord will re-institute the sacrificial system, making His own sacrifice null and void, cannot be supported by reading scripture in context.

Again you only presume that that is what I was saying. God/Christ does NOT say that it makes His sacrifice void. In fact, The Revelation is speaking of the revelation of the Passover LAMB to Israel so they WON'T err in their faith anymore! Lamb is mentioned 27 times in The Revelation in place of His name, Lord, Jesus, or Christ! Do you need any "instruction" as to Who the Lamb is? Israel does!

As I said, the sacrifices are 1) confirmation that the MK population is under the law and 2) that sacrifices are "ordinances" just like communion is to the church.

skypair

 

[canadyjd]

What's the diff?? Faith in God/faith in Christ -- sacrifices were still of no avail. What exactly are you saying?

The fact is the sacrificial system did not bring salvation to anyone. Why would our Lord re-institute a system that brings salvation to no one?

As I said, the sacrifices are 1) confirmation that the MK population is under the law

Again, the error is that Christ is going to put people "back under the Law". There is no need for the Law, since Christ has come. Christ will not divide His church, to say He will is utter nonsense.

and 2) that sacrifices are "ordinances" just like communion is to the church.

Another theory with no scripture support.

peace to youraying:

 

[skypair]

The fact is the sacrificial system did not bring salvation to anyone. Why would our Lord re-institute a system that brings salvation to no one?

Again, the error is that Christ is going to put people "back under the Law". There is no need for the Law, since Christ has come. Christ will not divide His church, to say He will is utter nonsense.

Another theory with no scripture support.

You've just "come full circle" with your logic, jd, saying "the sacrificial system saves no one" and then deny that the sacrifices will be "ordinances" which also do not save.

Do you agree that the lost are ALWAYS under the law? The issue isn't whether the law saves but what does the law demand. In the case of the OT, the law demanded sacrifices to "God with us." In the NT, God is IN us but not with us. Therefore, the sacrifices are taking place in heaven and are spiritual.

But when Christ comes to rule the earth, we go back to the "God with us" system until all is perfected (New Earth). Does the help?

skypair

 

[canadyjd]

You've just "come full circle" with your logic, jd, saying "the sacrificial system saves no one" and then deny that the sacrifices will be "ordinances" which also do not save.

My "logic" is founded in scripture. There is no reason to re-institute the sacrificial system, and scripture no where teaches it will be re-instituted in "the Day of our Lord".

Do you agree that the lost are ALWAYS under the law?

Are you claiming (according to your views) that National Israel, in the MK, are not saved, even though they are reigning with Christ?

The issue isn't whether the law saves but what does the law demand. In the case of the OT, the law demanded sacrifices to "God with us." In the NT, God is IN us but not with us.

Does not the NT teach us that Christ is Immanuel, meaning "God with us"? How, exactly, can God be "in" us, but not "with" us? You are attempting to make a distinction where there is no difference.

But when Christ comes to rule the earth, we go back to the "God with us" system until all is perfected (New Earth). Does the help?

Theories that cannot be supported by scripture are never helpful. Scripture never teaches that we "go back" the sacrificial system when Christ returns. That is nonsense.

peace to youraying:

 

[skypair]

My "logic" is founded in scripture. There is no reason to re-institute the sacrificial system, and scripture no where teaches it will be re-instituted in "the Day of our Lord".

I would merely cite Ezek 40-45 in response. If you are denying that it is the MK there and if you can't comprehend the dispensational wisdom of it, then I can't help you.

Are you claiming (according to your views) that National Israel, in the MK, are not saved, even though they are reigning with Christ?

Everyone who survives the tribulation into the MK is likely saved. However, children will be born in the tribulation. They, too, must know about the "law."

Does not the NT teach us that Christ is Immanuel, meaning "God with us"?

Yes -- and He is in heaven now, right? Therefore, He is not "with" us but He is "in" us. Get it?

Theories that cannot be supported by scripture are never helpful.

It's no 'theory' that Jesus is not with us.

skypair

 

[canadyjd]

Yes -- and He is in heaven now, right? Therefore, He is not "with" us but He is "in" us. Get it?

It's no 'theory' that Jesus is not with us.

skypair

Then you are calling Jesus a liar. Matt: 28:20 "....and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

 

[skypair]

Then you are calling Jesus a liar. Matt: 28:20 "....and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

jd -- it's great to be back "with" you. :laugh: You may say this in picky but FWIW ... if Jesus is IN us, He is with us but if He is WITH us doesn't mean He is in us.

skypair

 

[canadyjd]

jd -- it's great to be back "with" you. :laugh: You may say this in picky but FWIW ... if Jesus is IN us, He is with us but if He is WITH us doesn't mean He is in us.

skypair

I take Jesus at His word. He said He would be "WITH US" always.

You have tried to make a distinction that Jesus is "in us" but not "with us".

Like many of your theories, it doesn't past the test of scripture.

But hey, let's not argue over words.

peace to youraying: