Featured Will we be vegetarians in the millennial reign of Christ?

No- we will eat bacon. Of that I am sure.

 

Hello Grasshopper, and yes...that is my point, even as at that time they will understand that Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy.

This is why Acts 21 was given (by me). Paul performed ritual of the Law, not because he had to, but because as a Christian, it did not change anything concerning his understanding of salvation through Christ. It is similar to the question "What foods should we or shouldn't we eat?" For Paul, having a clear understanding, following this rite affected truth...not at all.

Agreed.

So did Paul in Acts 21.

The complaint was that many had heard that Paul taught men to forsake Moses (v.21), which was not true. He did not, concerning Gentiles, teach them as the Judaizers that they must follow the Law in order to be saved (Acts 15:1), but also true is that he did not teach that which the Judaizers taught, which is, that they must follow the Law or they could not be saved.

So in relation to whether it is possible for Jews to perform that which is contained within the Law, and whether one that understands the pictorial of Christ within the Law, we can see that it is not so far-fetched as it seems, Paul being an example in this passage.

While I agree with this as pertaining to Christ in the Law, I for one believe that just as all prophecy has a habit of being fulfilled a little differently than the popular notion/s expect, and think there may be some surprises in store, even for those of us empowered by the Holy Spirit to understand.

Consider:



Zechariah 14:16-19

King James Version (KJV)

16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.


Seeing that this is in a context wherein we see that Christ has returned, the obligation to celebrate this feast can be clearly seen with the emphasis upon the rule of Christ, rather than upon the efficacy of the sacrifices associated with it.

Before the arrival of Messiah, there would have been no thought of a fisrt Coming...much less a Second. Now that He has come, and we await His return, we can understand that this has not been fulfilled...but will be.

It is clear that his intention was to show that he did not teach contrary to the law, going so far as to join in this ceremony without going against his conscience toward Jew, Christian, or the Lord.

His participation was not a devious ploy to "fool the Jews," nor was he validating the need to keep the Law.

Peter also went against the traditional practice of those that kept the Law by eating with Gentiles, but when that certain came, he withdrew, evidencing either a weakness of conscience or a steadfast and sure understanding that cannot be attributed to Paul in this event.

So for myself, it was necessarily in order to reach the Jews, but as is clear in the passage, to show that those who thought he taught contrary to the Law might be satisfied.

The difference is considerable: while He did not, as the Judaizers, teach that one had to be circumcized (and we would have to decide if this applies to both Jew and Gentile, and think most would concede a Jew does not have to be circumsized physically to be saved) to be saved, neither did he teach..."Do not be circumcized."

Of course not, unless he was in the Millennial Kingdom.

Just kidding, Grasshopper...:smilewinkgrin:.

The problem that Paul had was what was noised abroad about him. He, being a persecutor of the Church, first had the problem of people not trusting him because of his persecution of the Church, and here the tables turn and he is not trusted because rather than trying to enforce the Law as he once did, he is accused of teaching men to forsake it.

What is also interesting is to note that here we have Christians that are zealous for their doctrine behaving in an unseemly manner.

I can assure you that Hebrews does not teach that both Covenants were to be followed.

While they may have both been in existence, there is no scriptural teaching that it is permissable for one to decide which Covenant he will be under.

The writer of Hebrews goes through great pains to convince his countrymen to embrace the New Covenant, and this by understanding that the First was but a shadow and picture of the true.

From an eternal perspective I would argue that on the Day of Pentecost...it became impossible.

Either that or there are Two Ways...not One.


If Hebrews is understood, then it cannot be said that remaining in the First Covenant was acceptable. This is one of the primary thrusts of this book. Whether there was a Temple in place or not, those sacrifices were no more efficacious than they were before Christ's appearing.

The First Covenant has been abrogated by the New. The writer of Hebrews does not say, "Take your time and think about it, and I hope you will embrace the New, but if you don't, that's okay."

Quite the contrary, he is clear that rejecting Christ they were rejecting the New Covenant, and to offer up sacrifice was in fact re-crucifying Christ just as the sacrifices were a picture of Christ being sacrificed. Every time a sacrifice was offered, it was a picture of the Lamb of God, Who would end that sacrifice. To reject Christ, meaning, to reject that what the Law pictured taught, which was that Christ would be offered for the sins of man, and to view the sacrifices themselves as the means of remission, was to give up the only means of true atonement.

I am fairly familiar with the book, and be glad to look at it with you.

Not sacrifice for sin, no. Christ offered the only sacrifice that can take away sin.

However, just as Paul participated in ceremony, even as we participate in ceremony when we partake of Communion, there is no reason to think that there will be no ceremony in the Kingdom of God here on earth, that is, the Millennial Kingdom.

And getting back to the topic of this thread, it stands to reason that if there are feasts, that it is reasonable to think that the Levitical Priesthood will officiate.

And if they do, it is reasonable to think that they will partake of the sacrifice as they did originally.

And in doing that, it would lead me to believe that meat will be eaten in the Millennial Kingdom.

Come on, Grasshopper, you know nothing of the sort was implied.

Was the work of Christ, and in particular the cleansing associated with salvation made null and void for Paul when he participated in this ceremonial cleansing?

It is simply a matter, I believe, that Paul having a clear conscience and a greater understanding of salvation than the mob that condemned him, could participate, knowing that the ritual did not change truth. He had liberty to eat pork, but, for the sake of his brethren, I am sure he did not do that among those who were legalistic in their mindset.

Okay, thanks for the response. Sorry it took so long to get back with you, this weekend was a little busy.

God bless.

 

So it is settled?

Hmm.

Agreed.

Especially when prophecy is involved.

And in turn, would you deny that sacrifice was part of this memorial?

It actually makes my point. Did the Jews think that the sacrifices of this feast delivered them from Egypt?


God bless.

 

There is a difference between reiterating the word of God and what you imply here, my friend.

For example, I can say with complete confidence that God cannot lie.

Am I "tell(ing) God what He must do or not do?"

And what is the nation? If you are trying to say that there are now no more nations among Christians then Acts must present quite a problem for you, seeing that nationality is not abandoned nad scripture is consistant of distiguishing that the saved come from differing nations.

There is of course One Fold and One Shepherd but this does not change the fact that they come from many nations. Until the eternal state, this is just a fact of life.

So you are implying that the sacrifices of Levitical practice...were effective? I know you are not.

Look at it this way: the same principle applies to a picture of His death before the Cross (sacrifice) that applies to His death after the Cross (Communion). Both are pictures of the true, both representing the same great truth symbolicly.

It is, though it is prospective rather than retrospective, as Communion is.

No, I would rather read your thoughts and more specifically the basis of those beliefs.

So far there has been little addressment of what I have said and much offering of what others have said. That's no way to carry on a conversation...lol.

I agree.

What does that have to do with the topic at hand, though. Hebrews speaks of the completion that the Sacrifice of Christ brings but it does not negate prophecy concerning the Return of Christ.

I think that there are probably many Catholics that do not view Communion from a Catholic doctrinal perspective. Few people are, first, aware of the deeper teachings of the denomination or faith they associate with, and second...are in complete agreement with them.

I would not presume to speak for a Catholic in what he believes, but would, as I would with you, find out what your beliefs are and then seek to examine the basis of that belief from a scriptural perspective.

God bless.

 

Darrell C

Dispensationalists argue for the literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies related to Israel. Dispensationalists argue for a literal temple in Jerusalem according to Ezekiel. Now you are telling me that you spiritualize the prophecy regarding sin offerings!

 

If you want to talk to a dispensationalist, do so.

If you want to talk to me, I look forward to it.

There is no spiritualization at all. I have simply given my belief in regards to the Millennial Kingdom and whether I think there will be vegetarians or not.

The sacrifices I believe to be a very real possibility are not what I would view to be for the purpose of atonement for sin, even as the sacrifice of Passover would not be.

I could say that those that deny the very Kingdom that Israel looked for to spiritualize on a far grander scale than I do, but, I am willing to understand how one could come to that conclusion.



Acts 1:6-7

King James Version (KJV)


6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.



Christ does not rebuke them for expecting the promises of God to be fulfilled. It is just my view that the promises of God to Israel will be fulfilled , in keeping with His promises. This includes the Kingdom which Christ taught of in the Gospels which Israel was in waiting for.

God bless.

 

The nation of which Jesus Christ speaks is His Church! God speaking through the Apostle Peter regarding the Church tells us:

1 Peter 2:9, 10
9. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
10. Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

 

You are parroting dispensational doctrine so???

Some of us understand that all Scripture is not to be interpreted literally.

Glad to see you understand that the Kingdom does not belong to Israel. Jesus Christ did not answer because the only way Jews/Israelites will enter the Kingdom or ever entered the Kingdom is through Jesus Christ. Furthermore, Jesus Christ did not teach a millennial/messianic kingdom in the Gospels. But Jesus Christ did teach a general resurrection at His return which rules out any earthly millennial/messianic kingdom.

 

And I agree, however, we still look at the fact that Gentiles are distinguished from Jews, though they be saved.


Acts 10

King James Version (KJV)

28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.


Did Cornelius change nationalities when he was saved?

Our unity as the people of God in Christ does not chnage the temporal aspect of our nationality. If it did, who's heritage do we follow? That of the Hebrew, or the American, or perhaps that of a particular nation in the early Church?

It is my opinion that the heritage we are born in, if it contain the truth of scripture, is acceptable before God. My faith is quite different concerning certain things than that of someone from another country, yet neither I nor he is better than the other in Christ.

God bless.

 

When you want to have a reasonable discussion, let me know. If you simply want to presume to know my beliefs, well, I cannot spend my time answering what you think I believe.

There has been plenty given to respond to, so far, so, I will give you space to do so.

In order, my responses to this post are:

1-SQUAWK! lol

2-merely presumption and a hope you are right...lol.

3-The Lord did indeed answer:


Acts 1:6-7

King James Version (KJV)


6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.


...and He does not deny that their expectation would be fulfilled, only that it was not given to them to know at this time. Compare that with this:



Matthew 25:13

King James Version (KJV)

13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.


Now if we make this to "literally" speak of the same thing, meaning we do not distinguish between the return of Christ and the Kingdom, nor do we distinguish between the Kingdom of God from a salvific persepective rather than temporal, we might miss that Christ tells them specifically of a time when something would happen:



Acts 1:7-8

King James Version (KJV)


7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.



What is He referencing here? We have but to back up a bit:


Acts 1:7-8

3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.


Most would agree that in truth the Kingdom of God from an eternal perspective can be seen in this passage. If you believe that the Church began at the Coming of the Comforter, then you would say that the spiritual reign of God in the hearts of His people began here.

Now, consider carefully, that the Lord could not be saying that the Kingdom which the disciples inquire of is the same as the spiritual Kingdom of God, for He cannot both say it will come not many days hence and...


7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.


Okay, have to get ready for work now, so, I will be back when I can, in hopes of serious discussion apart from hostile jibes which atheists use as an excuse to blaspheme God.

I will check back in before I leave.

God bless.

 

Not in the sight of God!

Acts 10:34. Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

Acts 1:10-13
10. Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?


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;

You are dividing Jesus Christ and His Church.

You seem to be arguing that those divisions exist in eternity [and in the fictional earthly millennial kingdom]! That is false!

 

One can only judge who people are by what they say. If you parrot dispensational doctrine it is reasonable to believe that you are dispensationalist.

It is obvious when you resort to asinine comments like

that you are not interested in serious discussion.

So now I am an atheist and all because I thought you a dispensationalist.:laugh: It is not me who blasphemes God but those who would reinstitute what God has put aside in the death of Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 9:28. So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

You would have Jesus Christ in all the glory of the Godhead sitting in a house of stone amongst a sinful people who must offer blood sacrifices. For What!

 

If I had been quoted in full it would be seen that I am not:

We are redeemed "out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation" is referring to the fact that different peoples have been redeemed from sin...not the nation it was a part of.

Again, it is easy to cherry-pick the posts to achieve a desired result, but let's look at all that I have said and see this is a false charge:

God bless.

 

So if I say that because you believe in a spiritual realm (kingdom) and reign of Christ in the here and now you are parroting...JWs?

It is going to happen that those of differing theology systems are going to have common ground. That does not make me a dispensationalists, and it does not make you a JW.

While it may seem thus to you, I can assure you that atheists are watching Christians very closely. THey come on Christian forums and then return to their own to mock God...because Christianity has no unity, thus denying that which scripture teaches and exhorts.

Can you tell me that your responses have been kind? Gentle? Have had a concern that perhaps I might be someone in need of salvation, because I do not agree with you?

lol

Yes, atheists love it when we rip each other apart, and seek to make fools of each other, that we might have victory in our hearts for being...right.

On the contrary. I would love to have serious discussion.

I have presented my view of why it is reasonable that meat will be eaten in the Millennial Kingdom, now, the burden is on you to teach why there will be no Millennial Kingdom.

First, I did not call you an atheist, simply referred to behavior in which atheists revel in, which is when hostile jibes, rather than civil, courteous discussion are forthcoming.

Secondly, I have in some detail pointed out why I believe it possible for there to be "sacrifice" in the Millennial Kingdom, and that it is not in my view to be considered efficacious for atonement for sin.

You have ignored most of this, choosing rather to sling labels and undermine the discussion to the point where there would be in most cases nothing left to do but respond with emotional response.

Sorry, but I try not to get into the schoolyard antics, and seek only to discuss the basis of belief.

For what?

Well, that is a good question. My answer, in short, would be for the very same reason the Law was given in the first place, as a testimony against the wickedness of man. In the Kingdom, observance of Law will be no more effective for salvation nor obedience than it was under the First Covenant. Sacrfice did not take away sin under the First Covenant, and the observance of feasts and the sacrifices that we might suppose to go with those will not either.

Take for example, the Ten Commandments. Did God saying "thou shalt not kill" keep man from killing? No. But when this was broken the Law was a witness against the transgressor.

In the Kingdom, Christ will rule and if He says..."Attend the feasts," then that is what is to be done...right?

But it is my belief that despite the fact that Christ will Personally rule here upon earth, there will be those that will rebel.

God bless.

 

Darrell C

Answer me a question or two.

Scripture tells us that man cannot look on the Glory of God and live.

1 Timothy 6:13-16
13. I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
14. That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
15. Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
16. Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

Exodus 33:22, 23
22. And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
23. And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God, is to return in power and Great Glory.

Revelation 19:11-16
11. And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

Matthew 24:30. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Now you say that Jesus Christ in all the Glory of the Godhead is going to dwell in a stone house in the midst of sinful mankind. Yet Scripture [shown above] states that man cannot look upon the Glory of God and live. So how is this possible? Are you saying that these mortals on earth during the millennium never see the Glorified Savior? He sits there all alone?

 

I am not aware of any doctrine that teaches the restoration of the Jewish millennium and Temple worship other than dispensationalism!

One other comment on your long post.

I believe that God has been reigning since dirt, well actually throughout eternity. The Jehovah;s Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ started reigning on earth in 1914.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe in an earthly millennial reign, apparently with Jesus Christ in Heaven. I don't. I believe in a general resurrection just as Jesus Christ said [John 5:2, 29] and a New Heavens and New Earth [Revelation 21, 22; Isaiah 65; 2 Peter 3] where the redeemed will dwell with the Triune God eternally.

It would appear that you have more in common with the JW's than I do.

 

It would appear that you do not believe the bible. You do not believe in the literal 6 day creation according to your own account. You do not believe in a literal 1000 year rule of Christ here on earth. You do not believe in the restoration of the sacrifices. You appear not to believe the bible as it is written. Perhaps you have more in common with the JW's then you think.