Animal sacrifices

Thank you for proving my point. You can't point to one scripture that answers my questions.

 

You have answered NOTHING and you know it. This is right out of Hal Lindsey and Jack VanImpe playbook. Put those books down and pick up a Bible.

I asked where in the text does it say these are to direct people born in the Millennium back to the Cross. Your answer, the above verses. You cannot provide any, not one.

I asked where it specifically states where in these passages it says these sacrifices are for a memorial or remembrence. Again, no scripture except those that say SIN OFFERING. Here's a clue, "sin offering" does not mean in rememberance. Let me show you what a remembrance looks like:

Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.


See anything like that in Ezekiel 40-48? Yea, me either.

Remeberance is found in Ezekiel, but not in chapters 40-48. Strange that an entire system supposedly for remembrance does not contain the very word needed to convey that thought.

Not only is remembrance not found in Ezekiel 40-48 but memorial is not found either. But the Old Testament Prophets had no problem using that word in other places:

Exo 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

Yet nowhere in Ezekiel 40-48 is "remembrance" or "memorial" found. Very strange considering according to you that is what the entire text is all about. Humorous to say the least.

Nor did you explain to all us uneducated people why there is a difference in the meaning of "sin offering" in Leviticus and "sin offering" in Ezekiel. What is the lexical reason they mean completely different things? Put that "Doctorate" to work.

One of us is indeed "willingly ignorant" we'll let the readers decide who. I just figured most like to see people be honest with what scripture says instead of just reading into it fiction and passing it off as God's Word. But some would rather have fantasy than reality, so you'll always have a preaching gig and LaHaye will always sell books.

 

You say you take these passages literally? Why are you speaking of a "millennium" reign, then? That is only 1000 years, whereas the passage speak of an eternal reign.

Ezekiel 43:7 "And He said to me, 'Son of man this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell among the sons of Israel forever....'"

If you take the passage literally, you must reject the "millennium" reign theory, and believe God will dwell there for all eternity. And since God is dwelling there "forever", the sacrifices spoken of must be done "forever" as well, if you want to take the passage literally.

But that isn't what the passage says, as Grasshopper has pointed out.

Ezekiel 43: 25-27 "'For seven days you shall prepare daily a goat for a sin offering; also a young bull and a ram from the flock, without blemish, shall prepared. (26)For seven days they shall make atonement for the altar and purify it; so shall they consecrate it. (27) And when they have completed the days, it shall be that on the eighth day and onward, the priests shall offer you burnt offerings on the altar, and your peace offerings; and I will accept you,' declares the the LORD GOD."

The objective is clear. The offerings make atonement for the sin, and allows God to "accept" you.

If you take Exekiel 43 literally, then there is only a repeating of the same language given to the Hebrews by Moses in the Law.

However, in Hebrews 10:3, we do see God declaring the objective of the sacrifices.

"But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year."

So the sacrifices reminded them of their sins, not of Christ who takes away sins.

And, finally, Hebrews 10:9 is very clear, and should be taken literally.

"then He said, 'Behold, I have come to do thy will,' He takes away the first in order to establish the second."

Do you take Hebrews 10:9 literally? The first (animal sacrifices year after year) has been "taken away" and the second (Christ's scracfice once for all) has been "established".

Now, to "re-establish" the first, you must undo the second. And since you take Ezk. 43 literally, you must keep doing animal sacrifices for all eternity.

With respect, you're wrong on this one, Dr. Bob.

peace to youraying:

 

The OT sacrifices and feasts will be a memorial, as we keep the Lord’s table now.

And we will keep the Lord’s supper in the kingdom as well as a memorial.


We will keep Lord’s table

Mt 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.

And Israel will keep passover

Lu 22:16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

 

What do yo do with Isaiah 25:6?

 

You didn't address the Hebrews passage.

Hebrews 10:9 says that Christ takes away the first (animal sacrifices year after year) to establish the second (His once for all sacrifice for sin).

If Christ has taken away animal sacrifices and established His own once for all sacrifice, how can He re-establish animal sacrifices without making the term "once for all" mean nothing?

IOW, if Christ re-establishes animal sacrifices then scripture has testified falsely that Christ's sacrifice is "once for all", especially since the Ezk passage is clearly speaking of making sacrifice for a sin offering and atonement before God?

peace to youraying:

 

Getting dog-piled isn't fun is it? I think of all the previous posts, the one which read, "read Hebrews" held the most irony for me:

There is no passage in the entire Bible which says animal sacrifices in the OT atoned for sins. All they did was temporarily cleanse the flesh defiled by sin. Which is why they needed repeating, over and over. Comparing Christ's atoning sacrifice to animal sacrifices or insinuating that they are the same is the real error here.

Keep on keeping, Dr. Bob.

 

Lev. 4:13: "Now if the whole congregation of Israel commits error... (followed by details on how to offer the sacrifice)..... (v20)...So the priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven.

Lev. 4:22 "When a leader sins.... (followed by details on how to offer the sacrifice)..... (v.26) Thus the priest shall make atonement for him in regard to his sin, and he shall be forgiven."

Lev. 4:27 "Now if anyone of the common people sins unintentionally..... (followed by details on how to offer the sacrifice)..... (v.31) Thus the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven."

Lev. 4:32 "But if he brings a lamb.... (followed by details on how to offer the sacrifice)..... (v.35) Thus the priest shall make atonement for him in regard to his sin which he has committed, and he shall be forgiven."

And so on, and so on, and so on.

In Hebrews, scripture compares Christ's atoning sacrifice to the animal sacrifices of the O.T.: demonstrating the first has replaced the second as a once for all sacrifice.

Therefore, there is no need for animal sacrifices to continue at anytime in the future.

Welcome to the BB.

Please be prepared to have your statements examined against scripture for accuracy.

peace to youraying:

 

In order to understand what you replied, should I use the same word atonement in the same way in the other "so on" passages such as "money atonement" for souls (Ex 30:15-16), "atonement for the house" (Lev 14:53) or "atonement" for the altar (Lev 16:18)? What you are passing as atonement for sins in the same way Jesus did is not that at all. It was merely cleansing or covering sins (or the defilement they caused; house; altar), not removing them forever.

I'll amend my statement slightly for you. There is no passage in the Bible which says that the OT animal sacrifices atoned for sins in the same manner or way Jesus Christ did. That is, for the entire world, not just Israel. For all time, not just until the next sin. For all sins, not just those which violated the Law from Sinai...and so on, and so on...

Which leads me back to the point I was trying to make. There is no "re-introduction" of the Law of Moses in the Millennial Kingdom. Animal sacrifices there are for the same sanctifying purpose as they were in the OT. That's all. That the gentiles are participating in the Feast of Booths (Zec 14:16-18) also makes this clear.

What animal sacrifices did for the OT saints and will do for the Millennial saints is being done for Church saints by the Word and the Holy Spirit.

Thanks for the welcome.

 

I never said that scripture says they were removed forever. You, however, stated no passage of scripture says animal sacrifices atoned for sins. The passages I quoted to you demonstrated you were incorrect.

And I have never said otherwise.

And my point is that you are ignoring scripture, specifically the passage in Hebrews, which says Christ takes away the first (animal sacrifices) to establish the second (His once for all sacrifice).

What animal sacrifices did for the OT saints was a forshadowing of Christ's once for all sacrifice, which replaces and removes (takes away) the need for animal sacrifices.

There is no separate future for Israel. Any Jews that are saved (and that number might be considerable) are saved by the gospel and become part of the church.

It is clear from Eph. that both Jew and Gentile have been united in one new body, the church, to be presented to God the Father by the power of Holy Spirit.

To believe a separate future for Israel exists ignores many passages of scripture that testify to the unification of Jew and Gentile in the church.

peace to youraying:

 

Frankly, recalling what Hebrews tells us, I had no problem with AnotherBaptist's remarks above. The blood of animals was obviously not sufficient to take away sin else the death of Jesus Christ was needless. I like what Hebrews says about animal sacrifice:

Hebrews 10:1-4
1. For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Perhaps AnotherBaptist could have phrased his initial remark differently.

It is unfortunate that dispensationalists don't spend a lot of time in Hebrews. That book alone is sufficient to show the error of dispensationalism.

 

On the contrary. It recognizes that unification as unique and a mystery that was not part of the OT prophets' writings/understanding (as Paul made very plain) while recognizing that Israel is still under the Law and God has yet to fulfill all His Promises to them. The Jew in the Church is no longer a Jew. That leaves many others who still are. Paul can't be describing both groups as one when he says they "are enemies of the Gospel", now can he?

 

I've wondered about that myself. Maybe it is the very title that makes them think it is not really for them.

 

Now that is the answer of a man who lost a debate. lol

 

On the contrary, Eph. 2 does not say that "Jews that are in the church are longer Jews" and that Jews that are not part of the church are still Jews.

It says that one result of Jesus's work on the cross was to unite the "commonwealth of Israel" and "Gentiles" (any nation other than Israel) into "one new man" to have access to God the Father through the power of Holy Spirit.

As far as your statement that this unity was not part of the OT prophecy, you are ignoring Paul's reference to Isa. 57, "And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near."

So Paul "made very plain" that the unity he is speaking of in Eph. 2 is supported by O.T. prophecy from Isa. 57.

peace to youraying:

 

What about Hebrews causes problems? Do you still take Leviticus at face value in your life as well, btw?