Robert's Gospel According to the Apostle Paul

[glorydaz]

If the law didnt apply to you the cross doesnt either...

Seems you'd get tired of flapping your gums to such little effect.

The purpose of the law is to show us our sin and lead us to faith in Christ. If you don't know that after all you've been told, you are a fool.

This side of the cross is WHY WE WANT TO KEEP THE LAW...cuz our Savior asked us to...if we love Him...

Wrong, keeping the law keeps you from faith in Christ Jesus.

But yes I know it doesnt apply to you...nor does water baptism or Lord’s Prayer or supper or rewards for good works...

Actually, you know jack. You're like a child proud because he can count all the way up to 10.

 

[Jacob]

Well there might yet be a temple but nothing we should support or endorse...more along the line of an abomination of desolation

Third Temple is to be built then rapture to escape Armageddon troubles after supporting it and then 2/3 jews killed or something antisemitic like that and the last third to convert and then peace at last...or something

Happily some jews are even against this israel its Zionism

an abomination of desolation?

I am not a Zionist.

 

[tetelestai]

If it is based on Ezekiel 40-48 then I understand your post.

Ezk 40-48 speaks of numerous animal sacrifices for sin atonement. Hebrews makes it clear that Christ Jesus made a one time sacrifice for sin atonement for past, present, and future sins.

There is no way animal sacrifices for sin atonement in the yet future is Biblical.

However, what has happened in heaven with Jesus presenting His own blood, or if it is in the temple in heaven, does that mean there is no temple on earth?

The temple on earth was a "pattern" of that which is in heaven:

(Heb 8:5) They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."

Do you understand what I am saying? Animal sacrifice in the temple according to Ezekiel is not wrong, and I don't think that sacrifice in the second temple was wrong even if by a different name than Herod's temple in the time that that was going on.

The first and second temple were under the Old Covenant. So, animal sacrifices for sin atonement took place at both temples.

Certainly what can never take away sin may have in fact been commanded by God. That does not make it wrong, but provides a teaching point. So we need to know if there is a contradiction raised by this that necessitates abandoning an Ezekiel temple?

Ezekiel's temple was a prophecy with conditions. Had the Jews kept God's commands, and not rejected His Son, then the prophecy would have came true.

The second temple was not as great as Solomon's.

Correct. The Second Temple did not have the Ark of the Covenant in it. The Babylonians stole it from the First Temple, and to this day, no one knows where it went (not even Indiana Jones)

 

[clefty]

Seems you'd get tired of flapping your gums to such little effect.

The purpose of the law is to show us our sin and lead us to faith in Christ. If you don't know that after all you've been told, you are a fool.

no cute emoji?

The law was given to jews not to you...

Wrong, keeping the law keeps you from faith in Christ Jesus.

faith without works is dead...no works faith is MADness

Actually, you know jack. You're like a child proud because he can count all the way up to 10.

I want emojis...lol

And every child of Yah should WANT to count to 10...not just hear it but do it


You MAD?

 

[tetelestai]

You may have spiritualized something in regard to the word temple and God and Jesus and maybe even the believer. I do not deny Biblical truth. I know that I am working through something however (animal sacrifice after Christ and after the destruction of the temple).

Everything points to Christ Jesus.

 

[clefty]

Everything points to Christ Jesus.

Indeed HalleluYah...

Is why Paul writes they ARE shadows pointing to Him and NOT they WERE shadows...

You note the present tense yes?

Still binding...

 

[clefty]

an abomination of desolation?

I am not a Zionist.

You are if you are wanting to join them but not making them jealous to join us...

 

[tetelestai]

Well there might yet be a temple but nothing we should support or endorse...more along the line of an abomination of desolation

Agree

Third Temple is to be built then rapture to escape Armageddon troubles after supporting it and then 2/3 jews killed or something antisemitic like that and the last third to convert and then peace at last...or something

Rubbish.

Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD.

Even to this day, no one knows where the temple stood. The Jews claim it was where the Dome of the Rock is. Some say that is where the Antonia Fortress was. Others claim the temple was where the Gihon Spring is, in the City of David. Others claim it wasn't on Mt Moriah, but on Mt Zion.

All this confusion shows that Christ Jesus' prophecy was fulfilled in 70AD:

(Luke 19:44) They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”

Happily some jews are even against this israel its Zionism

The vast majority of people who call themselves "Jews" today, follow the Talmud. Nothing could be further from the Bible than the Talmud.

 

[Jacob]

Ezk 40-48 speaks of numerous animal sacrifices for sin atonement. Hebrews makes it clear that Christ Jesus made a one time sacrifice for sin atonement for past, present, and future sins.

True. But animal sacrifice pictures something. It is something.

There is no way animal sacrifices for sin atonement in the yet future is Biblical.

I do not know if I can fault you for saying for sin atonement. There is a sin offering spoken of.
And Yom HaKippurim is spoken of as The Day Of The Atonements. But where do we find atonement in animal sacrifice? And yet, where is it not? Do you follow? If there is no atonement in animal sacrifice then there never was. If there is no longer then there once was.

The temple on earth was a "pattern" of that which is in heaven:

Yes.

(Heb 8:5) They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."

Yes.

The first and second temple were under the Old Covenant. So, animal sacrifices for sin atonement took place at both temples.

Why not just the first? I accept Paul's sacrifice and Yeshua's observance.

Ezekiel's temple was a prophecy with conditions. Had the Jews kept God's commands, and not rejected His Son, then the prophecy would have came true.

I have heard this. I don't know if that is the way we should approach prophecy. Ezekiel is a book and a prophet.

Correct. The Second Temple did not have the Ark of the Covenant in it. The Babylonians stole it from the First Temple, and to this day, no one knows where it went (not even Indiana Jones)

Not sure.

 

[Jacob]

Everything points to Christ Jesus.

true, yes
that is one approach to teaching
and your subject is the truth
so be truthful

 

[Jacob]

You are if you are wanting to join them but not making them jealous to join us...

I am a Jewish convert and a Christian.

 

[tetelestai]

BINGO...not it’s laws...is why the crowding goyim had to have some house rules just to fellowship...

Thus lies the crux of every misunderstanding for the last 1,900 years.

The writer of Hebrews made it clear, but for 1,900 years, people have not figured it out.

(Heb 8:13) By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

There was a 40 year overlap of the two covenants (New & Old) from the cross to 70AD.

The failure to understand this is why everyone has been confused for 1,900 years (i.e. keeping the Sabbath, tithing, tongues, baptism, 10 Commandments, etc.)

 

[tetelestai]

Indeed HalleluYah...

Is why Paul writes they ARE shadows pointing to Him and NOT they WERE shadows...

You note the present tense yes?

Still binding...

Yes, because when Paul wrote to the Colossians, the Old Covenant had not yet come to an end.

There were still Jews alive who were born under the law, who still observed the Sabbath.

However, that would soon end:

(Heb 8:13) By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

 

[clefty]

Agree



Rubbish.

Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD.

Even to this day, no one knows where the temple stood. The Jews claim it was where the Dome of the Rock is. Some say that is where the Antonia Fortress was. Others claim the temple was where the Gihon Spring is, in the City of David. Others claim it wasn't on Mt Moriah, but on Mt Zion.

All this confusion shows that Christ Jesus' prophecy was fulfilled in 70AD:

(Luke 19:44) They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”



The vast majority of people who call themselves "Jews" today, follow the Talmud. Nothing could be further from the Bible than the Talmud.

Sadly evangelicals charismatics Pentecostals and this MAD is quite powerful politically and in full press mode lobby wise into foreign and domestic agendas...even post Vatican 2 catholics refrain from proselytizing jews rather allowing for TWO PATHS into the kingdom..

The root of which is jewish false witness that customs of Moses were changed...and its OT VS NT and jews have Law and we have Yahushua and the cross rightly divided jew and goyim instead of creating a new creature of the two...

Glad to have stolen Sabbath back from them...lol...

 

[Jacob]

The vast majority of people who call themselves "Jews" today, follow the Talmud. Nothing could be further from the Bible than the Talmud.

The Talmud has a lot of truth in it. What is based on Torah. We have that it is the Oral Law.

 

[tetelestai]

True. But animal sacrifice pictures something. It is something.

Animal sacrifices for sin atonement were temporary until Christ Jesus made the one time sacrifice for sin FOR EVER.

Animal sacrifices for sin atonement AFTER the cross is blasphemous.

I do not know if I can fault you for saying for sin atonement. There is a sin offering spoken of.
And Yom HaKippurim is spoken of as The Day Of The Atonements. But where do we find atonement in animal sacrifice? And yet, where is it not? Do you follow? If there is no atonement in animal sacrifice then there never was. If there is no longer then there once was.

Animal sacrifices were a temporary covering of sins that foreshadowed the perfect, one time, complete, absolute, sacrifice of Christ Jesus for sins.

 

[clefty]

Thus lies the crux of every misunderstanding for the last 1,900 years.

The writer of Hebrews made it clear, but for 1,900 years, people have not figured it out.

(Heb 8:13) By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

There was a 40 year overlap of the two covenants (New & Old) from the cross to 70AD.

The failure to understand this is why everyone has been confused for 1,900 years (i.e. keeping the Sabbath, tithing, tongues, baptism, 10 Commandments, etc.)

LOL...yes heard that too...less histrionic than MAD...you didnt cover the spread though as Yahushua died 30-34 ad add to that your 40 and its only 70sAD....happily John the revelator wrote +80AD

“Here are they that keep the commandments of Yah and the faith OF Yahushua”

So there it is...

 

[Jacob]

Animal sacrifices for sin atonement were temporary until Christ Jesus made the one time sacrifice for sin FOR EVER.

Animal sacrifices for sin atonement AFTER the cross is blasphemous.



Animal sacrifices were a temporary covering of sins that foreshadowed the perfect, one time, complete, absolute, sacrifice of Christ Jesus for sins.

Some say not even temporary but might there be another term to class these because temporary implies that they were effectual but that then with Jesus they no longer would.

There is no blasphemy here.

Was Paul's sacrifice for atonement?

 

[tetelestai]

Sadly evangelicals charismatics Pentecostals and this MAD is quite powerful politically and in full press mode lobby wise into foreign and domestic agendas...even post Vatican 2 catholics refrain from proselytizing jews rather allowing for TWO PATHS into the kingdom..

The Catholics and Muslims have added to the confusion.

The Dormition Abbey sits upon Mt. Zion, and the Dome of the Rock & Al-Aqsa Mosque sit upon Mt. Moriah (the Jews call "temple mount")

Neither the Muslims, Catholics, or Jews know where the temple really sat. There's a reason for that. In 70AD, Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed so badly, that even to this day, no one knows where it stood.

That's because the destruction of the temple in 70AD marked the end of the Old Covenant (the heavens & earth).

 

[clefty]

Yes, because when Paul wrote to the Colossians, the Old Covenant had not yet come to an end.

There were still Jews alive who were born under the law, who still observed the Sabbath.

However, that would soon end:

(Heb 8:13) By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

All this to avoid Sabbath...LOL...

no christian I know denies we are not to worship another god or make idols or take the name in vain or that we are to honor father and mother not steal not murder not bare false witness not commit adultery not covet...but when it comes to the seventh day Sabbath...”AWWWW HELLL NOOO!!!...we are under grace alone...law abolished...only Spirit led...doesnt apply to gentiles...”

LOL...