Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
you are making it about the bible and nowhere in scripture does it make it so.It's about Jesus Christ, not a man with long hair and a beard,but the very life that came out of him,and that same life is now in a believer,and he meditates and draws upon that life until it becomes him.
Let's be fair he/she only said, it was one of the functions of the Holy Spirit
You neither understand what I am saying or the differences between the Levitical priesthood of the dispensation of Israel and the royal priesthood which belongs to the dispensation of the church. Concerning Israel, God chose the priesthood to come through the tribe of Levi. The animal sacrifices were for the purpose of graphically demonstrating to the Jews that God required a substitutiony sacrifice to atone for mans sins. That sacrifice would be Jesus Christ.
Now Jesus Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Jesus Christ is superior to the Levitical priesthood established in the Old Testament, demonstrating that the only priesthood existing today is the royal priesthood of Christ, in the order of Melchizedek. In the dispensation of the church, every believer is a priest because every church-age believer is in Christ and shares His priesthood.
The royal priesthood of the believer in the dispensation of the church IS superior to the Levitical priesthood of the age of Israel. But we are talking about the Levitical priesthood and the purpose of the animal sacrifices.
The animal sacrifices were figurative. They were a picture, a type, a demonstration of the atoning work of Christ on the cross. They were a teaching aid which taught the Jews the doctrines of redemption, atonement, propitiation and other associated doctrines. The animal sacrifices were a reminder of sins year by year (Heb 10:3). In other words, as a part of the Mosaic Law, the Levitical offerings revealed the Person and the work of the Messiah in shadow form.
Hebrews 10:1 'For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never by the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those who draw near.
Animal sacrifice was instituted by God after the fall of man and again is shown in Genesis 4 concerning Cain and Abel. God expanded the sacrificial system for Israel.
With the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, the animal sacrifices were to stop as the reality had come and the shadow form of the animal sacrifices were no longer necessary (Hebrews chapter 10). The animal sacrificial system of Israel belonged to the Mosaic Law and was required by God to be observed.
If you are able to understand Hebrews chapters 9 and 10, then you can understand that God required Israel to observe the animal sacrifices.
As for the meaning of Christ's death on the cross, He died as a substitutionary sacrifice for man's sins so that those who believe in Him will have eternal life. The Scriptures are quite clear on why Jesus went to the cross.
Jesus went to the cross as per the predetermined plan of God (Acts2:23) in order to pay the penalty for mans sins.
Hebrews 10:10 By this will we have been sanctified through offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Hebrews 10:12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God.
Hey Mike,
Ok, so regarding the parts I underlined above:
You feel that God wanted the Jews to reject Christ so that he could be sacrificed? (that is a common view of course) Because if not, then the animal sacrifices could not have been to "graphically demonstrate." I just wanted to make sure that is your perspective.
Regarding Abel's sacrifice in Genesis 4...it actually says that it was some of the fat of the firstborn of his flock. So I am assuming that the rest of the animal was in fact eaten...and that some if it was offered as a sacrifice to God, and not eaten.
I wanted to add quickly that both the Egyptians and the Sumerians sacrificed animals, and that both the Egyptians and Sumerians had this concept of the Priest-King (Melchzedek means "righteous priest king" or "King of Righteousness") The concept of course, is that the God of the Israelites was superior to the (false) Gods of these other two cultures. An interesting example of this sort of Hatfield-McCoy battle is of course found in Exodus.
An excerpt from an article online about Melchizedek reads: "The members of this ancient priesthood were the first to use the bread and wine to represent the body and blood of the earth---they never did animal sacrifices like the later priesthoods."
The Levitical Priesthood of Aaron did animal sacrifices, and one opinion is that since Melchizedek was very much like Christ, that he was a true high priest, whereas the others, that led Israel into some very bad karma, were not.
In Isaiah 1:11-15 it reads: "To what purpose is themultitude of your sacrifices unto ME?" said YAHOVAH: "I AM full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.""When you come to appear before ME, who have required this at your hand, to tread MY Courts?" "bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto ME; the new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it isiniquity, even the solemn meeting." "Your new moons and your appointed feasts, MY SOUL hated: they are a trouble unto ME; I AM weary to bear them." "And when you spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine Eyes from you: yes, when yo make manyprayers, I will not hear: "your hands are full of blood."
Here are some Theologians comments on Isaiah 1:11
Wesley's Notes on Isaiah 1:11
1:11 To me - Who am a spirit, and therefore cannot be satisfied with such carnal oblations, but expect to have your hearts and lives, as well as your bodies and sacrifices, presented unto me. Blood - He mentions the fat and blood, because these were in a peculiar manner reserved for God, to intimate that even the best of their sacrifices were rejected by him. From Barnes' notes on the Bible:
"To what purpose - לי למה lâmâh lı̂y. 'What is it to me; or what profit or pleasure can I have in them?' God here replies to an objection which might be urged by the Jews to the representation which had been made of their guilt. The objection would be, that they were strict in the duties of their religion, and that they even abounded in offering victims of sacrifice. God replies in this and the following verses, that all this would be of no use, and would meet with no acceptance, unless it were the offering of the heart. He demanded righteousness; and without that, all external offerings would be vain. The same sentiment often occurs in the Old Testament."
The point there is that the sacrifices were meant to be symbolic to God, and if it was not done in the proper spirit, it would have no meaning. Perhaps we are in agreement on this. The idea that Jesus abolished it is correct in considering his life's work...but my point was that Isaiah was telling them a long way before Jesus, so that the "message was out there. I think that is how our disagreement started.
My other point was that the sacrifices themselves were not meant to make penance for sin. It needed to be accompanied by the correct spirit of worship and subservience to God.
From Geneva Study Bible:
"Although God commanded these sacrifices for a time, as aids and exercises of their faith, yet because the people did not have faith or repentance, God detests them, Ps 50:13, Jer 6:20, Am 5:22, Mic 6:7.
Here is says "as aids and exercises of their faith," and once again this is symbolic.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary: "Judea was desolate, and their cities burned. This awakened them to bring sacrifices and offerings, as if they would bribe God to remove the punishment, and give them leave to go on in their sin. Many who will readily part with their sacrifices, will not be persuaded to part with their sins. They relied on the mere form as a service deserving a reward. The most costly devotions of wicked people, without thorough reformation of heart and life, cannot be acceptable to God. He not only did not accept them, but he abhorred them. All this shows that sin is very hateful to God. If we allow ourselves in secret sin, or forbidden indulgences; if we reject the salvation of Christ, our very prayers will become abomination."
As we can see from this last commentary as well...that all of the sacrifices being done did not help Israel to find favor with God. They were entirely missing the point, and were fallen. My point is that the sacrifices were neither here nor there. Someone with a pure heart and true love for God, who did not sacrifice animals (though it was the fallen priests who I'm did this on behalf of Israel in any case) would find favor with God...which is what Melchizedek knew, and Christ knew. The Israelites were doing the best they could at the time, but were ignorant of what God really wanted...which is what prophets such as Isaiah had come to tell them.
Isaiah was killed by the King of Judah...and we have the same story over and over again, of the Jews killing their prophets, teachers and enlightened ones. John the Baptist...killed...James and Peter...killed. Who wasn't killed? Oh...Elijah wasn't.
About Elijah...did you say that he probably came back to earth, and then died, and went to Sheol? Isn't that hell? Why would God send one of his greatest prophets and miracle workers...and someone who (like Jesus) was able to bring people back from the dead...to HELL? Or were you implying that it was more like purgatory?
About my first paragraph of this post...is that your official stance?
You neither understand what I am saying or the differences between the Levitical priesthood of the dispensation of Israel and the royal priesthood which belongs to the dispensation of the church. Concerning Israel, God chose the priesthood to come through the tribe of Levi. The animal sacrifices were for the purpose of graphically demonstrating to the Jews that God required a substitutiony sacrifice to atone for mans sins. That sacrifice would be Jesus Christ.
Now Jesus Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Jesus Christ is superior to the Levitical priesthood established in the Old Testament, demonstrating that the only priesthood existing today is the royal priesthood of Christ, in the order of Melchizedek. In the dispensation of the church, every believer is a priest because every church-age believer is in Christ and shares His priesthood.
The royal priesthood of the believer in the dispensation of the church IS superior to the Levitical priesthood of the age of Israel. But we are talking about the Levitical priesthood and the purpose of the animal sacrifices.
The animal sacrifices were figurative. They were a picture, a type, a demonstration of the atoning work of Christ on the cross. They were a teaching aid which taught the Jews the doctrines of redemption, atonement, propitiation and other associated doctrines. The animal sacrifices were a reminder of sins year by year (Heb 10:3). In other words, as a part of the Mosaic Law, the Levitical offerings revealed the Person and the work of the Messiah in shadow form.
Hebrews 10:1 'For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never by the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those who draw near.
Animal sacrifice was instituted by God after the fall of man and again is shown in Genesis 4 concerning Cain and Abel. God expanded the sacrificial system for Israel.
With the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, the animal sacrifices were to stop as the reality had come and the shadow form of the animal sacrifices were no longer necessary (Hebrews chapter 10). The animal sacrificial system of Israel belonged to the Mosaic Law and was required by God to be observed.
If you are able to understand Hebrews chapters 9 and 10, then you can understand that God required Israel to observe the animal sacrifices.
As for the meaning of Christ's death on the cross, He died as a substitutionary sacrifice for man's sins so that those who believe in Him will have eternal life. The Scriptures are quite clear on why Jesus went to the cross.
Jesus went to the cross as per the predetermined plan of God (Acts2:23) in order to pay the penalty for mans sins.
Hebrews 10:10 By this will we have been sanctified through offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Hebrews 10:12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God.
Also...I think a distinction should be made between the Ceremonial Aspects of the Law..and the Moral Aspect.
Hebrews 9:9-12
"9Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
10Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. 11But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."
This is further to the point I was making about this. The underlined parts echo the interpretation of Isaiah 1:11, and how both Melchizedek and Christ had it right...and the other priests didn't.
Last edited by TwoWitnesses; 10-09-2011 at 03:35 PM..
You are about as arrogant as they come. You claim to have corrected Paul's letters. You claim that you could supercede Paul's writings. You can't even understand the fact that Jesus could not sin and still pay the penalty for man's sins. By not believing Paul you are rejecting what Jesus said. For Paul and the other apostles wrote what had been given to them to write by the Holy Spirit who spoke what had been given to Him by Jesus (John 16:13-15).
Mike,
I understand that I come off arrogant sometimes in these posts. But you do as well...very arrogant in fact.
It seems that your training is speficially in Christianity. I could be wrong.
I have studied a vast number of other disciplines and teachings...and I really do mean vast, and so I can see a much bigger picture. I wouldn't claim this...except for you not knowing what "spiritual alchemy" is and calling it new age. Any theologian will know what this refers to and how ancient it is.
Regarding Paul...you know, when I first read the NT about 20 years ago, I loved Paul's writings. It expanded my Cosmic View of things. I do want to explain though, that while looking at it from an intra-Biblical perspective, I see problems with Paul's teachings vs. those of Christ on a few matters. I also disagree with Paul on some things in general. But I'm not saying he was completely wrong on everything. I am trying to relate to all this with an open-minded, scholarly (and objective) approach. When I was younger, and less learned, I couldn't do that.
My goal here has been to challenge people as much as possible. I am learning even more about all of this by doing that, than I ever could by simply reading, and not interviewing people.
I have debated with occultists, psychologists, scientists, Christians...you name it, over the course of two decades...and I could tell you things that would blow your mind. But for one...I know that you aren't interested in hearing about any of it. And that's cool.
If I were to consider Paul's work outside of the Bible, I would comment on it much differently. But I am doing this for a reason. One of the chapters in the book I am writing is about Christianity. The book itself is about Good and Evil. I am also hoping that my Jewish father will have a different, and expanded view of things after reading it.
I actually don't agree that Jesus actually "paid the penalty" for the sins. That's the thing. I reject that whole concept. I am in the minority no doubt, and that's okay with me.
I want to ask...because I want to be proven wrong if in fact I am:
After Jesus' ressurrection, where and when did he actually say himself that his death and ressurrection actually paid for our sins?
Please do not quote Paul, or verses from John that state something similar, like John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him"
Because this above passage simply states that if you believe in Him (and do what he says, which is the key)..you will find salvation. And it also states that the world would be saved through him...but it does not state that our sins are actually paid for.
So please show me, outside of Paul's teachings, where does it actually say that the SINS ARE PAID FOR by Jesus' death?
Also, John the Baptist also didn't sin apparently, but his death did not pay for our sins. Is there evidence anywhere that John the Baptist actually sinned?
Please understand, I am not doing this to be an ass##$*, but to further my knowledge as much as possible, and challenge you.
I actually don't agree that Jesus actually "paid the penalty" for the sins. That's the thing. I reject that whole concept. I am in the minority no doubt, and that's okay with me.
I want to ask...because I want to be proven wrong if in fact I am:
After Jesus' ressurrection, where and when did he actually say himself that his death and ressurrection actually paid for our sins?
Very little of what Jesus said after His resurrection is recorded in the gospels. Refer to what Jesus said before He went to the cross. See Matthew 26:28.
Quote:
Please do not quote Paul, or verses from John that state something similar, like John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him"
Because this above passage simply states that if you believe in Him (and do what he says, which is the key)..you will find salvation. And it also states that the world would be saved through him...but it does not state that our sins are actually paid for.
So please show me, outside of Paul's teachings, where does it actually say that the SINS ARE PAID FOR by Jesus' death?
Also, John the Baptist also didn't sin apparently, but his death did not pay for our sins. Is there evidence anywhere that John the Baptist actually sinned?
Please understand, I am not doing this to be an ass##$*, but to further my knowledge as much as possible, and challenge you.
You who believe that Jesus sinned when He prayed to the Father in the garden of Gethsemane, but think that John the Baptist did not sin, and who reject Paul as a false apostle, and who deny that Jesus Christ paid the penalty for the sins of the world are incapable of challenging me or any believer who has much knowledge of Bible doctrine.
With the exception of Jesus Christ, ALL MEN HAVE SINNED. Including John the Baptist. Romans 3:23 'for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,'
Since you don't believe that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins, and reject it, you reject the good news of the gospel. Then you issue a challenge to be shown from the scriptures where it says that Jesus did pay the penalty for our sins. But because you consider Paul a false apostle you say not to quote Paul. I have little patience for such foolishness.
In rejecting the fact that Jesus paid the penalty for the sins of the world you reject the doctrines of Redemption, Expiation, Unlimited Atonement, Propitiation, and Reconciliation.
Redemption is the work of Christ on the cross directed toward sin.
You say that you want to learn? Then learn from these studies on the doctrine of redemption. I will not take the time to present these doctrines in my own words.
I will however direct you to Matt 26:28, John 1:29,1 Peter 2:24, and 1 Peter 1:18-19.
1 Peter 1:18 'Knowing that you were not redeemed (bought, purchased) with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.
1 Peter 2:24 'and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.' There is Peter's attestation that Jesus died for the sins of the world.
John 1:29 'The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, ''Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.' This is John the baptist's statement concerning what Christ would accomplish on the cross.
Matthew 26:28 (Jesus speaking) 'For this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.' This is Jesus instituting the Lord's Supper in which the fruit of the vine represents His sacrifice on the cross in which He paid the price for the sins of the world.
You say that you want to learn? Here is your opportunity. Below are listed some doctrinally oriented pastor/teachers from which I have learned what I know.
I also suggest that you get the 8 volume 'Systematic Theology' by Lewis Sperry Chafer who was the founder and first president of Dallas Theological Seminary.
I understand that I come off arrogant sometimes in these posts. But you do as well...very arrogant in fact.
It seems that your training is speficially in Christianity. I could be wrong.
I have studied a vast number of other disciplines and teachings...and I really do mean vast, and so I can see a much bigger picture. I wouldn't claim this...except for you not knowing what "spiritual alchemy" is and calling it new age. Any theologian will know what this refers to and how ancient it is.
The study of religion does nothing to learn about God. Only what is revealed in the word of God is of any spiritual benefit.
Quote:
Regarding Paul...you know, when I first read the NT about 20 years ago, I loved Paul's writings. It expanded my Cosmic View of things. I do want to explain though, that while looking at it from an intra-Biblical perspective, I see problems with Paul's teachings vs. those of Christ on a few matters. I also disagree with Paul on some things in general. But I'm not saying he was completely wrong on everything. I am trying to relate to all this with an open-minded, scholarly (and objective) approach. When I was younger, and less learned, I couldn't do that.
Paul in no way contradicts Jesus. Paul taught the doctrines which pertain to the dispensation of the Church. These things were given to him to teach by God the Holy Spirit who spoke what was given to Him to speak. The passage belows includes Paul even though he wasn't yet an apostle.
John 16:12 ''I (Jesus Christ) have many more things to say to you, but you are not able to bear them now. 13] ''But when He (the Holy Spirit), the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14] ''He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you.
Quote:
My goal here has been to challenge people as much as possible. I am learning even more about all of this by doing that, than I ever could by simply reading, and not interviewing people.
I have debated with occultists, psychologists, scientists, Christians...you name it, over the course of two decades...and I could tell you things that would blow your mind. But for one...I know that you aren't interested in hearing about any of it. And that's cool.
If I were to consider Paul's work outside of the Bible, I would comment on it much differently. But I am doing this for a reason. One of the chapters in the book I am writing is about Christianity. The book itself is about Good and Evil. I am also hoping that my Jewish father will have a different, and expanded view of things after reading it.
Peace,
Randy
You are not qualified to write about Christianity. You do not understand even the simplest things. You have stated that Jesus sinned, but that John the Baptist did not. You presume to correct the apostle Paul. You don't even believe that Jesus paid for the sins of the world. You need to sit yourself down and learn Bible doctrine from a prepared pastor/teacher. I referred you to 4 different doctrinally oriented pastors in the other post.
You feel that God wanted the Jews to reject Christ so that he could be sacrificed? (that is a common view of course) Because if not, then the animal sacrifices could not have been to "graphically demonstrate." I just wanted to make sure that is your perspective.
God did not want the Jews to reject Christ. He knew that they would and designed His plan of salvation with that in mind.
And the animal sacrifices were indeed a graphic illustration of the redemptive work of Christ on the cross. The physical death of the animals represented the spiritual death of Christ on the cross. I have already pointed out that Hebrews chapters 9 and 10 show that the animal sacrifices foreshadowed the perfect sacrifice of Jesus. The animal sacrifices served as a reminder of sin year by year (Heb 10:3).
Quote:
Regarding Abel's sacrifice in Genesis 4...it actually says that it was some of the fat of the firstborn of his flock. So I am assuming that the rest of the animal was in fact eaten...and that some if it was offered as a sacrifice to God, and not eaten.
I wanted to add quickly that both the Egyptians and the Sumerians sacrificed animals, and that both the Egyptians and Sumerians had this concept of the Priest-King (Melchzedek means "righteous priest king" or "King of Righteousness") The concept of course, is that the God of the Israelites was superior to the (false) Gods of these other two cultures. An interesting example of this sort of Hatfield-McCoy battle is of course found in Exodus.
An excerpt from an article online about Melchizedek reads: "The members of this ancient priesthood were the first to use the bread and wine to represent the body and blood of the earth---they never did animal sacrifices like the later priesthoods."
The Levitical Priesthood of Aaron did animal sacrifices, and one opinion is that since Melchizedek was very much like Christ, that he was a true high priest, whereas the others, that led Israel into some very bad karma, were not.
In Isaiah 1:11-15 it reads: "To what purpose is themultitude of your sacrifices unto ME?" said YAHOVAH: "I AM full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.""When you come to appear before ME, who have required this at your hand, to tread MY Courts?" "bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto ME; the new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it isiniquity, even the solemn meeting." "Your new moons and your appointed feasts, MY SOUL hated: they are a trouble unto ME; I AM weary to bear them." "And when you spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine Eyes from you: yes, when yo make manyprayers, I will not hear: "your hands are full of blood."
Here are some Theologians comments on Isaiah 1:11
Wesley's Notes on Isaiah 1:11
1:11 To me - Who am a spirit, and therefore cannot be satisfied with such carnal oblations, but expect to have your hearts and lives, as well as your bodies and sacrifices, presented unto me. Blood - He mentions the fat and blood, because these were in a peculiar manner reserved for God, to intimate that even the best of their sacrifices were rejected by him. From Barnes' notes on the Bible:
"To what purpose - לי למה lâmâh lı̂y. 'What is it to me; or what profit or pleasure can I have in them?' God here replies to an objection which might be urged by the Jews to the representation which had been made of their guilt. The objection would be, that they were strict in the duties of their religion, and that they even abounded in offering victims of sacrifice. God replies in this and the following verses, that all this would be of no use, and would meet with no acceptance, unless it were the offering of the heart. He demanded righteousness; and without that, all external offerings would be vain. The same sentiment often occurs in the Old Testament."
The point there is that the sacrifices were meant to be symbolic to God, and if it was not done in the proper spirit, it would have no meaning. Perhaps we are in agreement on this. The idea that Jesus abolished it is correct in considering his life's work...but my point was that Isaiah was telling them a long way before Jesus, so that the "message was out there. I think that is how our disagreement started.
My other point was that the sacrifices themselves were not meant to make penance for sin. It needed to be accompanied by the correct spirit of worship and subservience to God.
From Geneva Study Bible:
"Although God commanded these sacrifices for a time, as aids and exercises of their faith, yet because the people did not have faith or repentance, God detests them, Ps 50:13, Jer 6:20, Am 5:22, Mic 6:7.
Here is says "as aids and exercises of their faith," and once again this is symbolic.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary: "Judea was desolate, and their cities burned. This awakened them to bring sacrifices and offerings, as if they would bribe God to remove the punishment, and give them leave to go on in their sin. Many who will readily part with their sacrifices, will not be persuaded to part with their sins. They relied on the mere form as a service deserving a reward. The most costly devotions of wicked people, without thorough reformation of heart and life, cannot be acceptable to God. He not only did not accept them, but he abhorred them. All this shows that sin is very hateful to God. If we allow ourselves in secret sin, or forbidden indulgences; if we reject the salvation of Christ, our very prayers will become abomination."
As we can see from this last commentary as well...that all of the sacrifices being done did not help Israel to find favor with God. They were entirely missing the point, and were fallen. My point is that the sacrifices were neither here nor there. Someone with a pure heart and true love for God, who did not sacrifice animals (though it was the fallen priests who I'm did this on behalf of Israel in any case) would find favor with God...which is what Melchizedek knew, and Christ knew. The Israelites were doing the best they could at the time, but were ignorant of what God really wanted...which is what prophets such as Isaiah had come to tell them.
I have already explained what Isaiah 1:11 means. I have already stated that without otherwise being obedient, the sacrifices had no meaning.
Again, the sacrifical system of animal sacrifice was established by God Himself. Its purpose was to illustrate the redemptive work that the Messiah would perform when He came. Its purpose was to be a reminder of sin.
Quote:
About Elijah...did you say that he probably came back to earth, and then died, and went to Sheol? Isn't that hell? Why would God send one of his greatest prophets and miracle workers...and someone who (like Jesus) was able to bring people back from the dead...to HELL? Or were you implying that it was more like purgatory?
I said that some think that Elijah was transported to another location where he lived until his death, at which point he would have gone to Sheol/Hades. Otherwise, he would have been taken immedately to Sheol after having been caught up into the first heaven - the sky.
Sheol/Hades before Jesus went to the cross was the abode of both believers and unbelievers. Hades has at least two compartments. Before the cross, Paradise was located in Hades. This is where believers went before Christ paid the penalty for man's sins, died, resurrected, and ascended into heaven [b](Luke 23:43). [/B ]Unbelievers still go to Hades, to the 'Torments' side (Luke 16:19-31).
A coffin or casket has but one compartment; it's a box.
Messengers, who err from the truth have always been shackled with hopelessness
for the majority of humanity, living in darkness until the time of their judgment.
God did not want the Jews to reject Christ. He knew that they would and designed His plan of salvation with that in mind.
And the animal sacrifices were indeed a graphic illustration of the redemptive work of Christ on the cross. The physical death of the animals represented the spiritual death of Christ on the cross. I have already pointed out that Hebrews chapters 9 and 10 show that the animal sacrifices foreshadowed the perfect sacrifice of Jesus. The animal sacrifices served as a reminder of sin year by year (Heb 10:3).
I have already explained what Isaiah 1:11 means. I have already stated that without otherwise being obedient, the sacrifices had no meaning.
Again, the sacrifical system of animal sacrifice was established by God Himself. Its purpose was to illustrate the redemptive work that the Messiah would perform when He came. Its purpose was to be a reminder of sin.
I said that some think that Elijah was transported to another location where he lived until his death, at which point he would have gone to Sheol/Hades. Otherwise, he would have been taken immedately to Sheol after having been caught up into the first heaven - the sky.
Sheol/Hades before Jesus went to the cross was the abode of both believers and unbelievers. Hades has at least two compartments. Before the cross, Paradise was located in Hades. This is where believers went before Christ paid the penalty for man's sins, died, resurrected, and ascended into heaven (Luke 23:43). [/B ]Unbelievers still go to Hades, to the 'Torments' side (Luke 16:19-31).
[b]And no, there is no such thing as purgatory.
Hey bro. I'm in a hurry (on a break from work right now) and I'll respond more to this soon.
Regarding the highlighted part...cool, thanks for clarifying that. I'll be back soon with some comments.
About the part in blue...it seems that we are in agreement then on that aspect of it. I want to get into the historical aspects of all of it more here in this thread when I have a chance and get your feedback.
Regarding Elijah...thanks for the additional information. I will research that further and let you know what I think (though I'm sure we may or may not agree!!)
Peace dude!
Be back soon
Randy
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
