• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Dedicated Altar

FollowingHim said:
The apostles may simply have kept attending the Temple because that's where they would find people to talk to about God. When going to towns outside Jerusalem, the apostles also went to the synagogues first, same reason. Same reason many of us go along to churches we disagree with either regularly or as occasional visitors - because of the people, our visit does not necessarily imply agreement with all details of that churches doctrine and practice. It MAY imply that, but it does not necessarily imply that.

No problem discussing this here! It's a worthwhile topic to discuss as so many people are getting enthusiastic about it, while so many others have very serious concerns. Good to raise it.
Click to expand...
Although, I could generally agree, the circumstances surrounding Acts 21 and how Paul was specifically ordered by the other Apostles to go up to the Temple to demonstrate how he was, in fact, not operating contrary to the law suggest to me that there was something more going on here than just, in this instance at least, going because that's where people were gathering.
 
jacobhaivri said:
Although, I could generally agree, the circumstances surrounding Acts 21 and how Paul was specifically ordered by the other Apostles to go up to the Temple to demonstrate how he was, in fact, not operating contrary to the law suggest to me that there was something more going on here than just, in this instance at least, going because that's where people were gathering.
Click to expand...

All well and good, accept the Son of God had already prophesied that the current temple was to be destroyed and raised again in Him.
 
Cap said:
All well and good, accept the Son of God had already prophesied that the current temple was to be destroyed and raised again in Him.
Click to expand...
I think that is potentially a case of trying to have your cake and eat it, too. I think He was only talking about the Temple of His body in that instance, otherwise you risk being inconsistent with the metaphor. Unless He was talking about both, in which case it could be argued that after 2 days (if a day is as a thousand years...) He was also talking about the earthly temple. However to be talking about the one and swapping to the other halfway through seems unnecessarily complicated and not necessarily justified beyond a circular reasoning which (seemingly to me) relies entirely on Christian doctrine based eisegesis.

Or is there some other reason for believing so? I am genuinely interested to know.
 
jacobhaivri said:
I think that is potentially a case of trying to have your cake and eat it, too. I think He was only talking about the Temple of His body in that instance, otherwise you risk being inconsistent with the metaphor. Unless He was talking about both, in which case it could be argued that after 2 days (if a day is as a thousand years...) He was also talking about the earthly temple. However to be talking about the one and swapping to the other halfway through seems unnecessarily complicated and not necessarily justified beyond a circular reasoning which (seemingly to me) relies entirely on Christian doctrine based eisegesis.

Or is there some other reason for believing so? I am genuinely interested to know.
Click to expand...

I think God has a way of sending multiple messages. Even though he personally was raised after two, we the church, his body, his temple are being raised likewise.

I base everything on Christian doctrine the way I interpret it, don't you?
 
Cap said:
I think God has a way of sending multiple messages. Even though he personally was raised after two, we the church, his body, his temple are being raised likewise.

I base everything on Christian doctrine the way I interpret it, don't you?
Click to expand...
I do not base things from Christian doctrine. I base understanding from the text and remain teachable. If Christian doctrine (and which sect are we talking about? Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Lutheran, or...?) seems to line up, I go with it unless I hear a better case. If I hear a better case, I will adjust and be refined.
 
jacobhaivri said:
I do not base things from Christian doctrine. I base understanding from the text and remain teachable. If Christian doctrine (and which sect are we talking about? Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Lutheran, or...?) seems to line up, I go with it unless I hear a better case. If I hear a better case, I will adjust and be refined.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Christian doctrine = Word of God. That's what I meant.
 
Cap said:
Sorry, Christian doctrine = Word of God. That's what I meant.
Click to expand...
Sorry @Cap Christian doctrine does not necessarily = Word of God.... as evidence, I give you monogamy-only.

As to sacrifice, Hebrews 8:4ish clearly says the sacrifices were being offered lawfully. There are many reasons besides sin to offer a sacrifice.

How do we see Ezekiel 43-48 fulfilled without sacrifice?

How do we see Isaiah 5:1-5 and Micah 2:1-4 fulfilled without sacrifice?

Do we really think one like unto Moses will come without being obedient to Torah?

If the antimessiah is lawLESS the we should expect a Messiah that is lawFUL. Else, how do we tell them apart?

If in the millennial reign, the Messiah rules with a rod of iron, what is the standard.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
I think that there are a number of events in recent history that fall into that category, the recreation of Israel being one of them.

I see no possible way to forestall something that God has determined. Others have discovered that to their own detriment. Think 6 day war in 1967. Events like this altar are on His schedule just as Jeremiah predicted that destruction by Nebuchadnezzar was according to Gods schedule.

How do you fight against God? Jeremiahs advice was don’t. Stay away from the city and keep your head down in the country. Hopefully it will pass by but if it doesnt, submit. God has a plan and you will inhabit your houses and lands again in His time. If you resist you’ll be destroyed by what He has ordained.
Click to expand...
God hasn't foreordained the time of the End. He's foreordained that it will come but the timing is up to us.
 
Well this is one of those areas where I diverge from my Hebrew roots brethren. Our roots may be Hebrew but our future is Christ. There is no place for temple sacrifices in the New Covenant and there is no way to do them lawfully since the implements used had to be purified by Aaron. It's going to be hard to accomplish that. Remember that Satan will use our momentum against us. Narrow is the gate, we do not want to get pushed out of our right and left lateral limits.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
Reference?
Click to expand...
Do you have a reference the other way? There's a reason why Christ didn't even know when the time is, because it hasn't been set yet. Yes God knows when it will be but He hasn't foreordained it. This is the ultimate expression of freewill on the macro level.
And no I'm not going to defend it. If you don't believe it then that's fine. I believe the opposite view breeds complaceny and a fatalistic surrender. Just remember that no human is destined to damnation so obviously there has to be an option for people to choose the correct path so it has to be possible to not choose to kickstart the Apocalypse. Do with that as you will. It's not something worth debating over.
 
Just stop talking @ZecAustin and @Verifyveritas76 , smoke a joint and chill out dudes... :D

Regarding the timing of the end, as God is omniscient then He can have a time set AND that time be influenced by us. Beccause He already knows when mankind will push him to do it. It's still a set time - but for us, who don't know the time, it's still reasonable to seek to put it off as long as possible to give greater time for evangelism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top